|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: 240/4 (MLC NOTE)
Guys, this thread has gone over 50 posts, and doesn't seem to want to end. By now, everyone has had a chance to advance their argument (at least once), and we are just going in circles, increasing noise and not contributing to signal. I'd like to summarize arguments advanced - and if you don't have something new (not listed here) to say, can you please avoid posting to this thread? If you disagree with me, please take it to nanog-futures. Summary of arguments: In favor of experimental use only: Alain Durand: at your own risk, this stuff can blow up your network In favor of private use: Randy Bush: if it works for you, why mark it experimental Dillon: why shouldn't people use it if they can In favor of no use at all: Joe Greco: "it doesn't work now (today) on current-generation OSes, there is no chance to get it to work in any shape of form by the time v4 space is exhausted". Steve Wilcox: "it will never work" Mixed: Daniel Senie: Allocate some as private, reserve rest as 'allocatable' once vendors get the gear fixed to accomodate those who use as private Additional points: David Ulevitch: If it is ever designated rfc1918, it cannot ever become public. Many: It will buy us some time before v4 address space is exhausted, and much less painful than v6 deployment Many: Old gear cannot be v6-enabled, but it can be 240-enabled Dillon: This is not our decision, this is IETF/IANA decision. -alex [mlc chair]
|