In message <caaawwbw2oh0-cpsvwyrfdodvjotavaq8wdlussqvshs5cot...@mail.gmail.com> , Jimmy Hess writes: > On 9/19/12, Joe Maimon <jmai...@ttec.com> wrote: > > > Why is this cast as a boolean choice? And how has the getting on with > > IPv6 deployment been working out? > > "getting a single extra /4" is considered, not enough of a return > to make the change. > > I don't accept that, but as far as rehabilitating 240/4, that lot > was already cast, I think, and the above was the likely reason, there > have been plenty of objections which all amounted to "too much > trouble to lift the pen" and change it..... > > So if you want some address space rehabilitated, by a change of > standard, it apparently needs to be more than a /4. > > > There is still no technical reason that 240/4 cannot be > rehabilitated, other than continued immaterial objections to doing > anything at all with 240/4, and given the rate of IPv6 adoption thus > far, if not for those, it could possibly be reopened as unicast IPv4, > and be well-supported by new equipment, before the percentage of > IPv6-enabled network activity reaches a double digit percentage...
The work to fix this on most OS is minimal. The work to ensure that it could be used safely over the big I Internet is enormous. It's not so much about making sure new equipment can support it than getting servers that don't support it upgraded as well as every box in between. > > That the discussion continues is in and of itself a verdict. > > Joe > -- > -JH > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org