On Feb 1, 2011, at 4:31 AM, Jeremy wrote:
Has there been any discussion about allocating the Class E blocks? If this
doesn't count as future use what does? (Yes, I realize this doesn't *fix*
the problem here)
yes. The bottom line is that it only gives you a few more /8s, and every host
and
On 1 feb 2011, at 4:55, Jimmy Hess wrote:
IPv4's not dead yet; even the first RIR exhaustion probable in 3 -
6 months doesn't end the IPv4 ride.
IPv4 is very dead in the sense that it's not going to go anywhere in the future.
The rest is just procrastination.
On Jan 31, 2011, at 10:43 PM, George Bonser wrote:
3. Busting out 16 more /8s only delays the IPv4 endgame by about a
year.
jms
If used for general assignment, sure. But if used for what people have
been begging for NAT444 middle-4 space. Well, that might work. Code
update on the
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:18:17PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 1 feb 2011, at 4:55, Jimmy Hess wrote:
IPv4's not dead yet; even the first RIR exhaustion probable in 3 -
6 months doesn't end the IPv4 ride.
IPv4 is very dead in the sense that it's not going to go anywhere in
On Jan 31, 2011, at 11:41 PM, George Bonser wrote:
There are negligible benefits as far as I can tell from the vantage
points of end systems to creating new private scope ipv4 regions at
this
late date.
Here, yes. In other places, maybe there are other factors. I am not
saying I
I think the ship has sailed for the class E /8s. Using them will require
significant effort and that effort, both time and money, is better spent
on deploying IPv6.
regards
Carlos
On 2/1/11 9:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jan 31, 2011, at 10:43 PM, George Bonser wrote:
3. Busting out 16 more
On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:53 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:18:17PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 1 feb 2011, at 4:55, Jimmy Hess wrote:
IPv4's not dead yet; even the first RIR exhaustion probable in 3 -
6 months doesn't end the IPv4 ride.
On 1 feb 2011, at 13:01, Owen DeLong wrote:
IPv4 is very dead in the sense that it's not going to go anywhere in the
future.
taking the long view - your statement applies equally to IPv6.
IPv6 has many places to go in the future. Of course the future is long, and
there will be a point
s/IPv6/ATM/g
Just saying...
Adrian
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 1 feb 2011, at 13:01, Owen DeLong wrote:
IPv4 is very dead in the sense that it's not going to go anywhere in the
future.
taking the long view - your statement applies equally to IPv6.
In message AANLkTinrhPYXvtS5wtA0PuhtEmi3f4tN9J5KOCBF1a=5...@mail.gmail.com,
Mart
in Millnert writes:
Jeremy,
I have not heard of any IP stack that is built to accept 240/4.
Neither Linux 2.6.37 nor Windows 7 accepts it, and let's not think
about all routers, including CPE:s, out there.
On 1/31/2011 10:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
1. Layering NAT beyond 2 deep (one provider, one subscriber)
doesn't help.
yep
2. NAT444 will break lots of things that work in current NAT44.
To be honest, ds-lite, despite being single layer still breaks
On Feb 1, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 1/31/2011 10:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
1. Layering NAT beyond 2 deep (one provider, one subscriber)
doesn't help.
yep
2. NAT444 will break lots of things that work in current NAT44.
To be honest, ds-lite,
On Feb 1, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:53 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:18:17PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 1 feb 2011, at 4:55, Jimmy Hess wrote:
IPv4's not dead yet; even the first RIR exhaustion probable
On 2/1/2011 9:13 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
As v6 innovation continues, v4 will be seen as something obsolete
that needs constant work (and v4 innovation will be more and more
about patching it to work and keep up with v6).
If it continues. The sad thing is, transition would have been a lot
On 2/1/2011 8:53 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Honestly, if you can't get native wholesale IP, you are buying from the wrong
carriers.
I agree. I did up the $5 million budget to light dwdm ring with 8x10GE
to Dallas where I could connect to any provider I wanted, but it was
unfortunately
On 1 feb 2011, at 16:21, Jack Bates wrote:
I still know a LOT of people who have no desire to switch. They are holding
out until vendors implement the features they want. NAPTv6, default router in
DHCPv6, etc, etc.
What's the point of switching to IPv6 if it repeats all the IPv4 mistakes
On 2/1/2011 2:57 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 1 feb 2011, at 16:21, Jack Bates wrote:
I still know a LOT of people who have no desire to switch. They are holding out
until vendors implement the features they want. NAPTv6, default router in
DHCPv6, etc, etc.
What's the point of
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
What's the point of switching to IPv6 if it repeats all the IPv4
mistakes only with bigger addresses?
If you like NAT IPv4 is the place to be, it'll only get more and more.
It's argument like this that has lead to this moment. Instead of
On 2/1/2011 3:10 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
- Original Message -
On 2/1/2011 2:57 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 1 feb 2011, at 16:21, Jack Bates wrote:
I still know a LOT of people who have no desire to switch. They are
holding out until vendors implement the features they want.
On 02/01/2011 10:08 AM, david raistrick wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
What's the point of switching to IPv6 if it repeats all the IPv4
mistakes only with bigger addresses?
If you like NAT IPv4 is the place to be, it'll only get more and more.
It's argument like
On 1 feb 2011, at 21:03, Dave Israel wrote:
People want to engineer their networks they way they want to. Let them. If
their way is stupid, then they'll have the stupidly engineered network they
wanted.
The problem is that their stupidity impacts ME. If I want to talk to Microsoft
from
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 10:27:45AM -1000, Paul Graydon wrote:
insignificant changes between v4 and v6. There is nothing on line
that isn't accessible over IPv4 so there has been no critical app
outside the infrastructure to spur such changes yet either.
Paul,
You're speaking
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dave Israel wrote:
responsibility. If they want to use DHCPv6, or NAT, or Packet over Avian
Carrier to achieve that, let them. If using them causes them problems, then
they should not use them. It really isn't the community's place to force
people not to use tools they
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Majdi S. Abbas m...@latt.net wrote:
If your business requires connectivity, you're not going to
have a choice, so you might as well get with the program. It's
less about making a business case for v6, and more about risk
management at this point.
+1
On 2/1/2011 3:32 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 1 feb 2011, at 21:03, Dave Israel wrote:
People want to engineer their networks they way they want to. Let them. If
their way is stupid, then they'll have the stupidly engineered network they
wanted.
The problem is that their stupidity
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dave Israel wrote:
I completely agree that, when interoperating, you have to follow the rules,
and I would (naively) hope that customers cannot reach me because of my
configuration choice is sufficient incentive to fix the problem for the
majority of network operators.
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:27:45 -1000, Paul Graydon said:
We're still using v4 because we can, because there has been no
compelling business case to justify spending time on something that
isn't necessary just right now, especially given the not insignificant
changes between v4 and v6. There
On 02/01/2011 10:32 AM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 10:27:45AM -1000, Paul Graydon wrote:
insignificant changes between v4 and v6. There is nothing on line
that isn't accessible over IPv4 so there has been no critical app
outside the infrastructure to spur such changes yet
In message 4d4870b8.4010...@otd.com, Dave Israel writes:
On 2/1/2011 3:32 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 1 feb 2011, at 21:03, Dave Israel wrote:
People want to engineer their networks they way they want to. Let them.
If
their way is stupid, then they'll have the stupidly
On Feb 1, 2011, at 12:08 PM, david raistrick wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
What's the point of switching to IPv6 if it repeats all the IPv4 mistakes
only with bigger addresses?
If you like NAT IPv4 is the place to be, it'll only get more and more.
It's
On Feb 1, 2011, at 12:36 PM, david raistrick wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dave Israel wrote:
responsibility. If they want to use DHCPv6, or NAT, or Packet over Avian
Carrier to achieve that, let them. If using them causes them problems, then
they should not use them. It really isn't the
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address
consumption to work around a shortage of addresses.
It does not solve any other problem(s).
Sure it does.
It obfuscates internal addressing.
This wasn't the original goal, but it's
On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address
consumption to work around a shortage of addresses.
It does not solve any other problem(s).
In all fairness, that's not really true. It just doesn't solve other problems
in
On 1 feb 2011, at 23:03, david raistrick wrote:
It obfuscates internal addressing.
This wasn't the original goal, but it's a feature that some groups of users
have come to require.
Creating a new random address every 24 hours (or more often if needed, I
assume) goes a long way towards
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
David Barak
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise:
http://www.listentothefranchise.com
If you're determined to destroy IPv6 by bringing the problems of NAT forward
with you, then, I'm fine with you remaining in your IPv4
On Feb 1, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address
consumption to work around a shortage of addresses.
It does not solve any other problem(s).
That's a bold statement. Especially as you said NAT and not PAT.
On 2/1/2011 2:32 PM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
It's not as if we haven't had 15 years to get it together...
And failed to do so properly.
jack
On 2/1/2011 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
As such, taking it away when giving you a large enough address space that there
is no longer a shortage doesn't
strike me as taking away a tool that solves a problem. It strikes me as giving
you a vastly superior tool that solves
rather than working
On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:43 PM, David Barak wrote:
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
David Barak
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise:
http://www.listentothefranchise.com
If you're determined to destroy IPv6 by bringing the problems of NAT forward
On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address
consumption to work around a shortage of addresses.
It does not solve any other problem(s).
In all fairness,
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 13:38 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address
consumption to work around a shortage of addresses.
Devil's advocate hat on: NAT (in its most common form) also permits
internal addressing to be independent of external
People won't be able to access our site
sure helps but being unable to put a date on it still reduces incentive
(especially when Management get involved, and especially if there is a
financial outlay involving firewalls etc.).
Geoff generously provided a probabilistic sense for RIR runout:
Pick your RIR and plot its runout date. If it's ARIN, then the first
ISP is out of IPv4 addresses at most three months later
no. arin is out, not an isp
Will users be unable to reach your content on $RIR_runout_date + 3?
yes, of course
randy
On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 13:38 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address
consumption to work around a shortage of addresses.
Devil's advocate hat on: NAT (in its most common form) also permits
On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
People won't be able to access our site
sure helps but being unable to put a date on it still reduces incentive
(especially when Management get involved, and especially if there is a
financial outlay involving firewalls etc.).
Geoff
Once upon a time, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com said:
On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
Devil's advocate hat on: NAT (in its most common form) also permits
internal addressing to be independent of external addressing.
Which is a bug, not a feature.
That is an opinion (and not a
On 02/01/2011 04:11 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
People won't be able to access our site
sure helps but being unable to put a date on it still reduces incentive
(especially when Management get involved, and especially if there is a
financial outlay
On Feb 1, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com said:
On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
Devil's advocate hat on: NAT (in its most common form) also permits
internal addressing to be independent of external addressing.
Which is a bug,
On 02/01/2011 08:27 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
Are there any expectations of a Gold Rush for the remaining addresses?
I would expect to see at least see some kind of escalation.
I've heard that it's already started at ARIN.
--
Kevin Stange
Chief Technology Officer
Steadfast Networks
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com said:
On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
Devil's advocate hat on: NAT (in its most common form) also permits
internal addressing to be independent of external
On Feb 1, 2011, at 9:39 PM, Kevin Stange wrote:
On 02/01/2011 08:27 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
Are there any expectations of a Gold Rush for the remaining addresses?
I would expect to see at least see some kind of escalation.
I've heard that it's already started at ARIN.
We had a small ramp
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:09:50 GMT, John Curran said:
We had a small ramp up in December (about 25% increase) but that is within
reasonable variation. Today was a little different, though, with 4 times
the normal request rate... that would be a rush.
Any trending on the rate of requests for IPv6
On 2/1/2011 9:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 1, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Owen DeLongo...@delong.com said:
On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
Devil's advocate hat on: NAT (in its most common form) also permits
internal addressing to be independent of
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:46 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:09:50 GMT, John Curran said:
We had a small ramp up in December (about 25% increase) but that is within
reasonable variation. Today was a little different, though, with 4 times
the normal request rate...
On Feb 1, 2011, at 10:46 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:09:50 GMT, John Curran said:
We had a small ramp up in December (about 25% increase) but that is within
reasonable variation. Today was a little different, though, with 4 times
the normal request rate... that
On Feb 1, 2011, at 11:05 PM, George Herbert wrote:
More interesting would be re-requests - organizations exhausting an
initial allocation and requiring more. People asking for the first
one just indicates initial adoption rates.
Other than experimental blocks, I am generally under the
Not necessarily.
There was a proposal passed at ARIN and I have a similar one proposed for
APNIC where you can request a second allocation should you need it for a
variety of justification.
For example: disparate non-connected networks under a different AS's.
This is the one that is bothering
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Skeeve Stevens ske...@eintellego.net wrote:
Not necessarily.
There was a proposal passed at ARIN and I have a similar one proposed for
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-December/019040.html
(I think you mean, or the one dave farmer's been working
On 2/1/2011 9:51 PM, Dave Israel wrote:
They were features dreamed up by academics, theoreticians, and
purists, and opposed by operators.
You mean like the lack of Default Router in DHCPv6?
Don't get me wrong. I love RA. However, it is NOT a universal tool, and
there are cases where Default
On 2/1/2011 10:19 PM, John Curran wrote:
I don't believe we've had an IPv6 additional request yet (but I look
forward to it happening at some point:-). I will check and get back
to the list with the definitive answer.
I believe that the changing of IPv6 policy leads to redo's, and I
expect
Somebody should probably get a blog instead of sending, *39 and
counting*, emails to this list in one day.
procmail is your friend
On 02/02/2011, at 1:11 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
People won't be able to access our site
sure helps but being unable to put a date on it still reduces incentive
(especially when Management get involved, and especially if there is a
financial
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:25 PM, bill manning bmann...@isi.edu wrote:
039/8 APNIC 2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED
106/8 APNIC 2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED
... whimper ...
Almost a sigh, actually; though in a moment of horrid thread convergence
and poor taste, there was some question
That was it :-) so long IPv4! It's been a great ride!
As good old Frank said, And now, the end is near, we face the final curtain...
cheers!
Carlos
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
039/8 APNIC 2011-01 whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED
106/8 APNIC 2011-01
I thought there are still 5 /8's left in IANA.
-Original Message-
From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo [mailto:carlosm3...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:36 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: quietly
That was it :-) so long IPv4! It's been a great ride!
As good old Frank said
, January 31, 2011 4:36 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: quietly
That was it :-) so long IPv4! It's been a great ride!
As good old Frank said, And now, the end is near, we face the final
curtain...
cheers!
Carlos
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
039/8 APNIC
On 1/31/2011 6:20 PM, Patrick Greene wrote:
I thought there are still 5 /8's left in IANA.
I thought there was an agreement that when there was only 5 /8's, each
RIR would be allocated 1 /8, and IANA would be done. :)
Jack
, Patrick Greene
patri...@layer8llc.commailto:patri...@layer8llc.com wrote:
I thought there are still 5 /8's left in IANA.
-Original Message-
From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo [mailto:carlosm3...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:36 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: quietly
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Patrick Greene patri...@layer8llc.com wrote:
I thought there are still 5 /8's left in IANA.
-Original Message-
From: Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo [mailto:carlosm3...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:36 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: quietly
Almost a sigh, actually; though in a moment of horrid thread convergence
and poor taste, there was some question being tossed around as to whether
Egypt's space could be reused, if they're not going to use it after all...
:/
That's sounds like those bad jokes that some jerks tell at a
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 1/31/2011 6:20 PM, Patrick Greene wrote:
I thought there are still 5 /8's left in IANA.
I thought there was an agreement that when there was only 5 /8's, each RIR
would be allocated 1 /8, and IANA would be done. :)
[mailto:carlosm3...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:36 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: quietly
That was it :-) so long IPv4! It's been a great ride!
As good old Frank said, And now, the end is near, we face the final
curtain...
cheers!
Carlos
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Randy Bush ra
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo
carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote:
That was it :-) so long IPv4! It's been a great ride!
IPv4's not dead yet; even the first RIR exhaustion probable in 3 -
6 months doesn't end the IPv4 ride.
There is some hope more IPv4 organizations will
On 1/31/2011 9:55 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
There is some hope more IPv4 organizations will start thinking about
their plans for establishing connectivity with IPv6; so they can
commmunicate with IPv6-only hosts that will begin to emerge
later.
Until the core networks fix their peering
On Jan 31, 2011, at 7:55 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo
carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote:
That was it :-) so long IPv4! It's been a great ride!
IPv4's not dead yet; even the first RIR exhaustion probable in 3 -
6 months doesn't end the IPv4
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
IPv4's not dead yet; even the first RIR exhaustion probable in 3 -
6 months doesn't end the IPv4 ride.
There is some hope more IPv4 organizations will start thinking about
their plans for establishing connectivity with
Has there been any discussion about allocating the Class E blocks? If this
doesn't count as future use what does? (Yes, I realize this doesn't *fix*
the problem here)
-Jeremy
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Jack Carrozzo j...@crepinc.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Jimmy Hess
On Jan 31, 2011, at 8:15 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
IPv4's not dead yet; even the first RIR exhaustion probable in 3 -
6 months doesn't end the IPv4 ride.
There is some hope more IPv4 organizations will start
Discussed, Disgusted, and Dismissed.
The E space would take more software upgrades to existing systems than just
deploying IPv6.
Owen
On Jan 31, 2011, at 8:31 PM, Jeremy wrote:
Has there been any discussion about allocating the Class E blocks? If this
doesn't count as future use what does?
Jeremy,
I have not heard of any IP stack that is built to accept 240/4.
Neither Linux 2.6.37 nor Windows 7 accepts it, and let's not think
about all routers, including CPE:s, out there.
The logic goes:
You are many orders of magnitudes more likely to get v6 off the
ground, than 240/4 or 224/4 as
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Martin Millnert milln...@gmail.com wrote:
Neither Linux 2.6.37 nor Windows 7 accepts it
Oops, I was clumpsy there, apologies. When I was testing this, I
messed up one of my hosts :/ It seems 240/4 *does* work as unicast v4
in Linux 2.6.37.
Then it's easy, just
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Jeremy wrote:
Has there been any discussion about allocating the Class E blocks? If this
doesn't count as future use what does? (Yes, I realize this doesn't *fix*
the problem here)
I think it has been discussed at various levels, but would likely have
been dismissed for
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Discussed, Disgusted, and Dismissed.
The E space would take more software upgrades to existing systems than just
deploying IPv6.
It's true. It was only after discovering how much work it would take
to make 240/4 like RFC
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Martin Millnert milln...@gmail.com wrote:
This has come up before, in 2007, and earlier,
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2007-10/msg00487.html
Way too late now for unreserving 240/4 to help.
Now, if it had been unreserved in 2003 or so, there might
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:31:43PM -0600, Jeremy wrote:
Has there been any discussion about allocating the Class E blocks? If this
doesn't count as future use what does? (Yes, I realize this doesn't *fix*
the problem here)
https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/240-e
Last real message? 31 Oct 2007
On Jan 31, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Jeremy wrote:
Has there been any discussion about allocating the Class E blocks? If this
doesn't count as future use what does? (Yes, I realize this doesn't *fix*
the problem here)
I think it has been discussed
Not to mention the software updates required to make it functional
would exceed the
software updates necessary for IPv6 _AND_ it has no lasting future.
Part one of that statement goes for v6 in a lot of places. The whole
NAT444 allocation argument would go away with this. Maybe we need both.
3. Busting out 16 more /8s only delays the IPv4 endgame by about a
year.
jms
If used for general assignment, sure. But if used for what people have
been begging for NAT444 middle-4 space. Well, that might work. Code
update on the CPE is all it would take. The systems involved would
On 1/31/11 10:43 PM, George Bonser wrote:
3. Busting out 16 more /8s only delays the IPv4 endgame by about a
year.
jms
If used for general assignment, sure. But if used for what people have
been begging for NAT444 middle-4 space. Well, that might work. Code
update on the CPE is all it
301 - 389 of 389 matches
Mail list logo
