North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: 240/4

  • From: Pekka Savola
  • Date: Tue Oct 16 14:38:32 2007

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 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. Once they get those vendors fixed up to support 240/4 in all the releases that they're interested in, and ops to change configs, they can deploy something in 240/4 for whatever (most likely private use, or private use with a NAT to the outside).

If the users decide that maybe doing the legwork is too difficult.. well, maybe that's a sign that deploying 240/4 isn't worth the trouble (yet) and reclassifying would also be premature.

It's not like the IETF or any other body is holding 240/4 hostage or something. It's what the vendors' code and what ops folks have configured that matters. If the code and configs can be changed and widely deployed, we have some proof that doing this might make sense at least in some context. Prior to that, there is no need to do anything.

Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings