<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7651.59">
<TITLE>Re: 240/4</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>What ever happened to pushing on the traditional class A owners to free up their address space?<BR>
<BR>
I can't help but think that the issue has always been mis management of the early assigned address blocks. Look at Nortel's block for instance... How many addresses are actually reachable directly from the internet? /22 subnets as a standard block with 100 addresses assigned.... They MAY have had an argument 8 years ago when they had 120K employees, but at 25K now, its a bit ridiculous. Hundreds of addresses per employee? How many other blocks are unallocated?<BR>
<BR>
V6 is a nice idea, but it only deals with the symptoms, not the cause.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu <owner-nanog@merit.edu><BR>
To: nanog@merit.edu <nanog@merit.edu><BR>
Sent: Wed Oct 17 18:41:39 2007<BR>
Subject: RE: 240/4<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> the other point as was mentioned later in the thread is that<BR>
> this buys you very little in terms of time before v4 is gone.<BR>
<BR>
On average, it buys everybody very little time. But that assumes that<BR>
240/4 is being released as a general solution for everybody.<BR>
<BR>
This is not the case. We want to release 240/4 as a solution for those<BR>
organizations that are in a position to control enough variables to make<BR>
it useful. For those organizations, 240/4 space could buy a LOT of time,<BR>
maybe even years. And for the rest of us, the IPv4 addresses that are<BR>
NOT used by those organizations, do indeed buy only a little extra time.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
But the point is that we are not gods. We cannot foresee all the<BR>
variables. We cannot engineer a set of solutions that will work for<BR>
everybody. Therefore, even if 240/4 only gives us a few extra months<BR>
before IPv4 is exhausted, it is still worthwhile because it is likely to<BR>
help some more organizations get their IPv6 transition completed before<BR>
hitting the brick wall. Since the value of the Internet, IPv4 or IPv6,<BR>
is in the near universality of access, it is to the benefit of<BR>
everyone's bottom line for more organizations to complete the transition<BR>
to IPv6 before IPv4 runs out.<BR>
<BR>
We cannot cop out on releasing 240/4 just because it is no magic bullet.<BR>
How would you feel if your arguments against 240/4 and other<BR>
half-measures resulted in them not being carried out. And then we hit<BR>
the brick wall of IPv4 exhaustion and some businesses start to lose<BR>
serious money?<BR>
<BR>
--Michael Dillon<BR>
<BR>
P.S. and how will you feel if those businesses trawl the record on the<BR>
Internet to discover that you, and employee of one of their competitors,<BR>
caused 240/4 to not be released and thereby harmed their businesses. You<BR>
will be explaining in front of a judge.<BR>
<BR>
We should do everything we can to remove roadblocks which would cause<BR>
IPv4 to run out sooner, or would cause some people to delay IPv6<BR>
deployment.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>