North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: 240/4

  • From: Brandon Galbraith
  • Date: Thu Oct 18 16:38:39 2007
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=0x7ObwFqfX0cPV1P4LbK28ufAMaBmvrZcSodESrVSz8=; b=XVXCifJuF05sKXl0OC2exM6ohgpDGLMaAOzEokCSuCirdr3jXU3HA+QpMWwilm+fgLbq4IvWsdFDpq/8hzH5+ZvSyKypF5vS20Xq9lFS7dSnqrnXNUyQ8ddf5bAl2memhFZFeqyu0OTtIE8EEQIS2+KZ1QIQ+V6Go/e62KRINk4=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=eeO7euzq+fUCmvi19Hf5daIKtI+bu7bJagxWJ4wM/4cEUzofX7Vwa9vz4Psppn/0bwWDOUKAvJeom0PyKOqJYGj3vHWXFLOJLSObYHyUNcsUdKBkiHpomo88s/3Tb9ZqbqZtwK4anQmTb8DvWi/wZbrUbm0A9nrQ/UlRFd50Pu4=
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 addressing so that if/when networks
> merge IP conflicts are avoided.

I do work for one of those "large cable companies" and no, 240/4 is not
useable for us either for the exact same reasons that you pointed out to
explain why 240/4 will not work in public space: there are just too many
devices that can't easily be upgraded.

   - Alain.

Alain,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Comcast started moving to IPv6 addressing *because* they ran out of 10. space.

My 0.02: Hacking together IPv4 solutions involving retasking previously reserved address space simply delays the inevitable exhaustion of said address space.

-brandon