North American Network Operators Group

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

RE: 240/4

  • From: Church, Charles
  • Date: Wed Oct 17 22:16:35 2007

-----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
>it useful. For those organizations, 240/4 space could buy a LOT of
>maybe even years.

	If this block was to be released to an RIR, who could possibly
have a use for it?  You can control your own variables, but if I'm an
ISP/customer, I'm going to find an address allocation that leaves 99% of
the Internet as a whole unreachable as pretty useless.  I might was well
just use RFC1918 space.
	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 peer crazy enough to try this.  And until tested, there is no
guarantee that hardware based routing platforms (your PFCs, etc) can
route Class E addresses as if they're unicast.

Just my .02 though....