North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: 240/4 (MLC NOTE)

  • From: S. Ryan
  • Date: Fri Oct 19 11:28:01 2007

Did you all miss this post?


Alex Pilosov wroteth on 10/18/2007 3:26 PM:
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"

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]