On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Ricky Beam <jfb...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > I'll wait for Curran to pop up with various links to reasons why Class E > was > > "abandoned" by ARIN. (short answer: too much broken crap thinks it's > > multicast!) > > Hi Ricky, > > You may be confused. ARIN never possessed class E; it's held in > reserve by IETF. As much as I enjoy a good ARIN bashing, they and John > Curran are quite faultless here. > > IIRC, the short answer why it wasn't repurposed as additional unicast > addresses was that too much deployed gear has it hardcoded as > "reserved, future functionality unknown, do not use." Following an > instruction to repurpose 240/4 as unicast addresses, such gear would > not receive new firmware or obsolete out of use quickly enough to be > worth the effort. > > Given how slowly IPv6 is deploying, this
Pardon me. But Apple has at least suggested y'all should be ready for ipv6-only networks, not class E http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/06/apple-to-ios-devs-ipv6-only-cell-service-is-coming-soon-get-your-apps-ready/ http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2015/06/apple-will-require-ipv6-support-for-all-ios-9-apps/ And the source video which is worth watching from start to finish https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2015/?id=719 choice may prove to have been > shortsighted. Had IETF designated class-E as "reserved, future > unicast" in 2008 when the issue was debated and asked vendors to > update their software to expect 240/4 to be used as unicast addresses, > half the problem equipment would already have aged out and we could > all be debating whether to make them more RFC-1918 or hand them off to > the RIRs. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com <javascript:;> > b...@herrin.us <javascript:;> > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >