[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

In message <54CC2B0D-EAE0-4B79-AF19-20BBD233A581 at istaff.org>, John Curran writes:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give =
> us a few more months, but:
> >=20
> > Does the US government really need more than 150 million addresses, of =
> which about half are not publically routed? Non-publically routed =
> addresses can be reused by others as long as the stuff both users =
> connect to doesn't overlap.
> Again, I note that we've collectively allocated the 95%+ of the address=20=
> space which was made available outside of DoD's original blocks, and =
> then
> considering that US DoD additionally returned 2 more /8's for the =
> community=20
> (noted here: =
> <http://blog.icann.org/2008/02/recovering-ipv4-address-space/>),=20
> I believe they've shown significant consideration to the Internet =
> community.
> The fact that any particular prefix today isn't in your particular =
> routing=20
> table does not imply that global uniqueness isn't desired.
> Rather than saying 240/4 is unusable for another three years, perhaps =
> the
> service provider community could make plain that this space needs to be=20=
> made usable (ala http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 or=20=
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-00, etc.) on a priority=20=
> basis and work with the operating system and vendor community actually
> to make this happen?  There's a chance that it could be made usable with=20=
> sufficient focus to make that happen, but it is assured not to be usable
> if eternally delayed because it is "too hard" to accomplish.
> /John
> (my views alone; 100% recycled electrons used in this message)

It's not usable as general purpose unicast.  Both those drafts
attempt to do that.

It would be possible to use it as restricted purpose unicast, i.e.
to connect from a cpe border router to a 6rd and/or LSN with the
cpe border router signaling that it support the use of class E
addresses when it requests a address from upstream.

The upsteam only returns a class E address when it is sure that the
network between the LSN/6rd supports class E traffic.

Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org