If a cable NAT box could survive on a tainted IPv4 we might well be able to find a use for them. I don't see how the addresses are any more viable as private space as public. Given the stakes with IPv4 allocations I would like to see a technical strategy in which the optimal course of action for all parties is to progress towards an orderly IPv6 transition. I do not beleive that transition to IPv6 is Pareto optimal today. I don't think that it makes sense to consider re-allocating any address space until we have such a strategy defined. It might make sense to tell IP stack providers that they should regard the block as routable IPv4 uncast at this point. I don't think it likely that we would roll out any new capablility for IPv4 at this point.
________________________________ From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 08/08/2007 2:12 PM To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; [email protected] Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt At 10:18 AM -0700 8/8/07, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: Which widespread IPv4 stacks? And then you quoted a message that shows examples of some stacks: C:\>ver Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] C:\>ping -n 1 247.1.2.3 Pinging 247.1.2.3 with 32 bytes of data: Destination specified is invalid. Ping statistics for 247.1.2.3: Packets: Sent = 1, Received = 0, Lost = 1 (100% loss), --- % uname -ro 2.6.22-8-generic GNU/Linux % ping 247.1.2.3 connect: Invalid argument How many more do you think we need? --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
