On Dec 1, 2011, at 8:10 AM 12/1/11, Eliot Lear wrote: > Ralph, > > Where we ran into trouble the last time on this was that the OSS systems > themselves that manage the edge devices needed to be able to actually > communicate with those devices using the reserved space (reachability > testing, what-have-you). All that stuff runs on a variety of h/w, > including Linux, Windows, and other. But if ops want to use 240/4, I > say have at it! It's just sitting there, after all...
Got it. I mistakenly inferred you were referring back to the discussion about adding 240.0.0.0/4 to the global address space pool... - Ralph > > Eliot > > On 12/1/11 2:06 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: >> On Dec 1, 2011, at 3:35 AM 12/1/11, Eliot Lear wrote: >> >>> Randy, >>> >>> >>> On 11/30/11 6:09 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >>>>> skype etc. will learn. This does prevent the breakage it just makes >>>>> it more controlled. What's the bet Skype has a patched released >>>>> within a week of this being made available? >>>> cool. then, by that logic, let's use 240/4. the apps will patch within >>>> a week. ok, maybe two. >>> As someone who tried to "Go There", I agree with you that 240/4 is not >>> usable. It would be fine in routers in short order, as it's fairly easy >>> for ISPs to exert influence and get that code changed, but general >>> purpose computing and all the OSS systems are a completely different >>> kettle of fish. >> Eliot - in the case of Shared CGN space, I think all that's needed is for >> the ISP routers between the CPEs and the CGN to forward 240.0.0.0/10 >> traffic. Those addresses will be hidden from the rest of the Internet by >> the CGN on one side and the subscriber GWs on the other side. If this >> address space weren't hidden, RFC 1918 space (e.g., 10.64.0.0/10) or a /10 >> reserved from public IPv4 space wouldn't work, either. >> >> Those subscriber GWs would have to handle 240.0.0.0/10 traffic correctly, >> and there would likely have to be some small amount of parallel RFC 1918 >> space in the ISP core network for servers, hosts, etc. Of course, I'm not >> an operator, so I'd be happy to hear why I'm confused. >> >> - Ralph >> >>> But that actually supports the notion that we need to use a different >>> block of address space. So does the argument that 10/8 et al are well >>> deployed within SPs. >>> >>> You wrote also that: >>> >>>> and all this is aside from the pnp, skype, ... and other breakage. >>>> and, imiho, we can screw ipv4 life support. >>> To keep this in the realm of the technical, perhaps you would say (a >>> lot) more on how you think this would break IPv4? >>> >>> For the record, I'm of two minds- I hate the idea that the SPs haven't >>> gotten farther along on transition, and I also wonder whether a rapider >>> deployment of something like 6rd would be better than renumbering all >>> edges into this space. On the other hand, that speaks nothing about all >>> the content on v4 today, and that's where the pain point is. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Eliot >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ietf mailing list >>> Ietf@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
