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

Re: 240/4

  • From: Stephen Wilcox
  • Date: Thu Oct 18 14:27:08 2007


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
investigate whether or not there were other versions of the software
that have been patched to support 240/4.

step awaaaay from the crack pipe...

Joe's facts were excellent. I read his email and thought "wow, this will kill this thread for sure"

why on earth would you want to go and hack this stuff together, knowing that it WILL NEVER WORK

so, as using these IPs publically isnt feasible why bother privately. you may as well use RFC1918 or IPv6. the latter whilst not without issues is at least being rolled out as part of a series of standards that are 10+yrs old

i am really struggling with some of the logic being given here. more specifically the omissions in that logic are glaring.

not attempt to engineer a solution that will work for everybody
..
not our reponsibility to fix every problem out there
..
I believe that people are not that stupid.
..
We do not have a good reason to deny them that possibility.
..
This is easy for vendors to fix.
..
It is a trivial amount of work for the IETF to release the address space
..
removing the 240/4 blockages could also be considered a trivial level of effort.
..
those of us who do not want or need 240/4 addresses can ignore it.
..
The cost is effectively zero in the first case,
..
why should anyone try and convert them to the one true Internet architecture?

i think you are somewhat deluded.

Steve