RE: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt

Which widespread IPv4 stacks?

Given that we have a shortage of IPv4 space I cannot see how we could possibly put a quarter billion IPv4 addresses beyond use just because a number of unspecified IPv4 stacks have issues.

Rather than wall off the space as private and thus put it beyond any use we should think about what other uses we might be putting it to.

>From a PR point of view this plays very baddly. It reads as IPv6 zealots eagerly bringing the crisis point nearer by a notch. 

We need to change the way that this transition is being managed Unless we get the stakeholders round the table and stop trying to dictate terms through technical unilateral specifications we are going to end up with the result that we like least and are trying to avoid.

The wargames do not point to an inevitable transition to IPv6. If you play them honestly they lead to a heavily NAT-ed model where the large ISPs are free to re-establish the walled garden model that keeps re-appearing.

This is brinksmanship diplomacy. It has a very poor record.

________________________________

From: Rémi Denis-Courmont [mailto:remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com]
Sent: Wed 08/08/2007 3:40 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt

On Wednesday 08 August 2007 10:14:03 ext Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2007-08-07 16:15, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > directories.
> >
> >
> >     Title           : Redesignation of 240/4 from 'Future Use" to "Limited Use for
> > Large Private Internets' Author(s)  : P. Wilson, et al.
> >     Filename        : draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt
> >     Pages           : 4
> >     Date            : 2007-8-7
> >
> >    This document directs the IANA to designate the block of IPv4
> >    addresses from 240.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255 (240.0.0.0/4) as unicast
> >    address space for limited use in large private Internets.
>
> It seems to me that we first need a discussion about why this space can't
> be released as public address space. Is it known to be already deployed
> as de facto private space?

Some widespread IPv4 stacks refuse to handle these addresses, so nobody would
ever want to use them on the public IPv4 Internet.

---

C:\>ver

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]

C:\>ping -n 1 247.1.2.3

Pinging 247.1.2.3 with 32 bytes of data:

Destination specified is invalid.

Ping statistics for 247.1.2.3:
    Packets: Sent = 1, Received = 0, Lost = 1 (100% loss),

---

% uname -ro
2.6.22-8-generic GNU/Linux
% ping 247.1.2.3
connect: Invalid argument

--
Rémi Denis-Courmont

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf