On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:35:52PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
Interestingly, my unpatched Ubuntu 7.04 notebook would let me install
routes for networks in 240/4, but would not let me configure an interface
IP in 240/4.
although this is not linux-l@ , here is a hint for those who keep
trying:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Adrian Chadd wrote:
People -chose- to use some new IP space which had once been bogon
space and then spent quite a bit of time figuring out why the hell
customers couldn't reach the general internet. People adapted.
We didn't choose it. ARIN and other RIRs started
Did you all miss this post?
Thanks.
Alex Pilosov wroteth on 10/18/2007 3:26 PM:
Guys, this thread has gone over 50 posts, and doesn't seem to want to end.
By now, everyone has had a chance to advance their argument (at least
once), and we are just going in circles, increasing noise and not
On 18-okt-2007, at 3:46, BELLEVILLE Ray wrote:
What ever happened to pushing on the traditional class A owners to
free up their address space?
The ARIN lawyers say it can't be done.
I don't find that a compelling argument, but unless something happens
very soon in this area, it will be
On 18.10 10:48, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Asking the whole internet to support 240/4 is going to tie up
valuable resources that would be far better off working on IPv6. Keep
in mind that it's not just software patches. Software vendors don't do
stuff for free. I doubt ISPs are going to
While traveling home via phx last night their free wireless was using
1.1.1.1 as the web auth portal. Perhaps this means that 1/8 is tainted
as well?
Leo Vegoda mentioned this at the last UKNOF meeting:
http://www.uknof.org.uk/uknof8/Vegoda-Unallocated.pdf
Cheers,
Rob
On 18 Oct 2007, at 15:09, Rob Evans wrote:
While traveling home via phx last night their free wireless was using
1.1.1.1 as the web auth portal. Perhaps this means that 1/8 is
tainted
as well?
Leo Vegoda mentioned this at the last UKNOF meeting:
Okay, this has descended to a point where we need some fact injection.
This very morning, I have done some simple research. My research focused
on the question, what if 240/4 were released for use on the public
Internet.
I am not interested in the question of what if 240/4 were released for
Please don't try to engineer other people's networks because they are
not going to listen to you. It is a fact that 240/4 addresses work fine
except for one line of code in IOS, MS-Windows, Linux, BSD, that
explicitly disallows packets with this address. People have already
provided patches
Okay, this has descended to a point where we need some fact injection.
You get a D on those facts because you did not review the literature,
did not attempt reasonable coverage of the problem space, and did not
investigate whether or not there were other versions of the software
that have been
Joe,
On Oct 18, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
The ROI on the move to v6 is immense compared to the ROI on the move
to v4-240+, which will surely only benefit a few.
I am told by people who have inside knowledge that one of the issues
they are facing in deploying IPv6 is that an IPv6
comments, but I truly felt it is/was
necessary..
Eric
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Stephen Wilcox
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: 240/4
On 18 Oct 2007, at 09:34, [EMAIL
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
You get a D on those facts because you did not review the literature,
did not attempt reasonable coverage of the problem space, and did not
investigate whether or not there were other versions of the software
that have been patched to support 240/4.
On 18 Oct 2007, at 09:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, this has descended to a point where we need some fact
injection.
You get a D on those facts because you did not review the
literature,
did not attempt reasonable coverage of the problem space, and did not
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) Anyone care to guess how much network gear is deployed that either
won't or can't be upgraded? i.e. Old cisco gear without the RAM and/or
flash to handle a newer code train...the old one in use long since
unsupported, or gear from vendors that no longer
On 10/18/07 12:53 PM, Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could see bits of 240/4 perhaps being of use to large cable companies
for whom there just isn't enough 1918 space to address all their CPE
gear...and/or they really want unique addressing so that if/when networks
merge IP
On 10/18/07, Alain Durand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/18/07 12:53 PM, Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could see bits of 240/4 perhaps being of use to large cable companies
for whom there just isn't enough 1918 space to address all their CPE
gear...and/or they really want unique
Okay, this has descended to a point where we need some fact injection.
You get a D on those facts because you did not review the literature,
did not attempt reasonable coverage of the problem space, and did not
investigate whether or not there were other versions of the software
that have
On 10/18/07 2:17 PM, Brandon Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Alain,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Comcast started moving to IPv6 addressing
*because* they ran out of 10. space.
Absolutely. I made the point earlier, making 240/4 work is about the same
order of magnitude as moving to
Scott Weeks wrote:
I have seen a LOT of that equipment out there in places like universities and
whatnot.
Eventually this stuff falls out of the internet or gets consigned to
roles where it can't do much in the way of damage. The timescale over
which this happens is extremely long. ipv4
Consider an auto company network. behind firewalls and having
thousands and thousands of robots and other factory floor machines.
Most of these have IPv4 stacks that barely function and would never
function on IPv6. One company estimated that they needed 40 million
addresses for this
On 10/18/07 2:24 PM, Joe Greco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, though, I have a better solution. Let's ask the IETF to revise
an RFC, and define the first octet of an IPv4 address as being from 0-
65535. That's asking the IETF to revise an RFC, too, such request being
just as
Joe,
On Oct 18, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
The ROI on the move to v6 is immense compared to the ROI on the move
to v4-240+, which will surely only benefit a few.
I am told by people who have inside knowledge that one of the issues
they are facing in deploying IPv6 is that an
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:53:58 MDT, Alain Durand said:
Or simply ask IANA to open up 256/5. After all, this is just an entry in a
table, should be easy to do, especially if it is done on Apr 1st. ;-)
And to think that we all laughed at Eugene Terrell
pgp1oANR5GLQa.pgp
Description: PGP
Consider an auto company network. behind firewalls and having
thousands and thousands of robots and other factory floor machines.
Most of these have IPv4 stacks that barely function and would never
function on IPv6. One company estimated that they needed 40 million
addresses for
Or simply ask IANA to open up 256/5. After all, this is just an entry in a
table, should be easy to do, especially if it is done on Apr 1st. ;-)
DOH! Point: you.
... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule.
why on earth would you want to go and hack this stuff together,
knowing that it WILL NEVER WORK
Because I have read reports from people whose technical expertise I
trust. They modified the TCP/IP code of Linux and FreeBSD and were able
to freely use 240/4 address space to communicate between
Thus spake Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The operators who want to do something private with this space don't need
the IETF or IANA approval to do so. So they should just go
ahead and do it. If they can manage to get it to work, and live to tell
about it, maybe we can consider that
I hadn't intended to post any further replies, but given the source and
the message here, felt this warranted it:
Compared to the substantial training (just getting NOC monkeys to understand
hexidecimal can be a challenge), back office system changes, deployment
dependencies, etc. to use
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The operators who want to do something private with this space don't need
the IETF or IANA approval to do so. So they should just go
ahead and do it. If they can manage to get it to work, and live to tell
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
So is this a statement that Cisco is volunteering to provide free binary
patches for its entire product line? Including the really old stuff
that happens to be floating around out there and still in use?
Considering there's forklift upgrades required
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 11:00:42PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
why on earth would you want to go and hack this stuff together,
knowing that it WILL NEVER WORK
Because I have read reports from people whose technical expertise I
trust. They modified the TCP/IP code of Linux and
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 11:48:00AM -0600, Alain Durand wrote:
240/4 is tainted. The fact that some code exist somewhere to make it work is
good, but the reality is that there are tons of equipment that do not
support it. Deploying a large network with 240/4 is a problem of the same
scale as
why on earth would you want to go and hack this stuff together,
knowing that it WILL NEVER WORK
Because I have read reports from people whose technical expertise I
trust. They modified the TCP/IP code of Linux and FreeBSD and were able
to freely use 240/4 address space to communicate
Consider an auto company network. behind firewalls and having
thousands and thousands of robots and other factory floor
machines.
Most of these have IPv4 stacks that barely function and would never
function on IPv6. One company estimated that they needed
40 million
Joe,
On Oct 18, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Fixing devices so that they can accept 240/4 is a software fix
that can be done with a binary patch and no additional memory. And
there are a _lot_ of these devices.
Sure, I agree there are. How does that number compare to the
number of
Guys, this thread has gone over 50 posts, and doesn't seem to want to end.
By now, everyone has had a chance to advance their argument (at least
once), and we are just going in circles, increasing noise and not
contributing to signal.
I'd like to summarize arguments advanced - and if you don't
I think Michael's point is that it can be allocated as
unique space for internal use. i.e. kind of like 1918
space, but you know your slice of
240/4 is only used on your network[1]. For that purpose,
it's fine, as long as you determine that all your gear allows it.
Not quite. I don't
240/4 is tainted. The fact that some code exist somewhere to
make it work is good, but the reality is that there are tons
of equipment that do not support it.
If you believe that, then don't use it.
But don't dictate to me and everyone else what we can and cannot use in
our networks. If
I'm trying to avoid setting the expectation that 240/4 is
just a simple extension to 10/8 and thus people should use it
*today* when they run out of space in RFC1918.
I don't believe you.
If you were really trying to avoid setting the expectation then you
would be communicating with the
An interesting tidbit of information:
While traveling home via phx last night their free wireless was using
1.1.1.1 as the web auth portal. Perhaps this means that 1/8 is tainted
as well?
Jared Mauch
On Oct 17, 2007, at 5:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you were really trying to
On 10/17/07 3:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
240/4 is tainted. The fact that some code exist somewhere to
make it work is good, but the reality is that there are tons
of equipment that do not support it.
If you believe that, then don't use it.
But don't dictate
On 16 Oct 2007, at 09:42, Randy Bush wrote:
my first thought on how to use it revolved around the idea that the
devices inside my site are more diverse than those on the transit
internet. therefore, if i can use 240/4 internally, certainly we will
all be able to transit it. where this died
the other point as was mentioned later in the thread is that
this buys you very little in terms of time before v4 is gone.
On average, it buys everybody very little time. But that assumes that
240/4 is being released as a general solution for everybody.
This is not the case. We want to
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:41:39 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is not the case. We want to release 240/4 as a solution for those
organizations that are in a position to control enough variables to make
it useful. For those organizations, 240/4 space could buy a LOT of time,
maybe even years.
, but it only deals with the symptoms, not the cause.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Wed Oct 17 18:41:39 2007
Subject: RE: 240/4
the other point as was mentioned later in the thread is that
this buys you very little
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We want to release 240/4 as a solution for those
organizations that are in a position to control enough variables to
make
it useful. For those organizations, 240/4 space could buy a LOT of
Asking the whole internet to support 240/4 is going to tie up
valuable resources that would be far better off working on IPv6. Keep
in mind that it's not just software patches. Software vendors don't do
stuff for free. I doubt ISPs are going to pay huge amounts of money to
support a
bureaucratic roadblock. ARIN's failure to allocate 240/4 space to
THOSE WHO DESIRE IT is a bureaucratic roadblock. IETF's failure to
un-reserve
240/4 space is a bureaucratic roadblock.
If you use this stuff internally and don't tell anybody about
it and nobody ever know, you're
Stephen Wilcox wrote:
unfortunately i think this is a non-started for all except private
deployments
the other point as was mentioned later in the thread is that this buys
you very little in terms of time before v4 is gone.
I can see a reasonable amount of demand for 240/4 with carriers in
240/4 is tainted. The fact that some code exist somewhere to make it work is
good, but the reality is that there are tons of equipment that do not
support it. Deploying a large network with 240/4 is a problem of the same
scale as migrating to IPv6, you need to upgrade code, certify equipment,
Randy pointed out rightly, this is not only your network that needs
upgrading, this is all the networks who communicate with you that needs
upgrading.
So, classifying 240/4 as public use is unrealistic now and will remain
unrealistic in the near future.
agree
Classifying it as private
On 10/16/07 11:56 AM, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Classifying it as private use should come with the health warning use this
at your own risk, this stuff can blow up your network. In other words, this
is for experimental use only.
disagree. as you point out, this is analogous
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Alain Durand wrote:
Classifying it as private use should come with the health warning use this
at your own risk, this stuff can blow up your network. In other words, this
is for experimental use only.
Do we need to classify anything (yet)?
I say the proof is in the
* Pekka Savola:
Do we need to classify anything (yet)?
I say the proof is in the pudding. Once some major user decides
they'll need 240/4 for something, they'll end up knocking their
vendors' (probably dozens) and their own ops folks' doors.
If there's risk that we'll see end user
55 matches
Mail list logo
