North American Network Operators Group

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

RE: Some thoughts on 240/4

  • From: michael.dillon
  • Date: Sat Oct 20 00:52:17 2007

> Take it as a given that it *will* slip the schedule some 
> amount, because the resources for a 240/4 feature will have 
> to come from somewhere.  So how much slippage are you willing 
> to accept?

OK, assuming on the order of 5 lines of code, let's allow 1 day for
meetings to decide to do this, one day to change the code and get the
change signed off, and 1 day to do regression testing. That makes a
total of 3 days slippage for IPv6 features in the worst case. Earlier in
the thread we were told that releasing 240/4 could only buy us an extra
year of time. Let's assume that was overly optimistic and it will only
buy one twelfth of that, i.e. an extra month before IPv4 exhaustion.

Seems to me that spending 3 days to get back 30 days is a very
profitable proposition.

Clearly, slippage of IPv6 features is not a problem and it is not a
problem precisely because the proposal is to release these 240/4
addresses to have exactly the same default unicast behavior as the
majority of the IPv4 space.

--Michael Dillon

P.S. I hope that the issues discussed on this thread will be picked up
by the authors of draft-fuller because I think there is enough here to
make an update to the draft worthwhile.