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

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

 




On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Douglas Otis wrote:

Some larger providers and private organizations who depend upon private IPv4 addresses have complained there is no suitably large "private" IP address range which can assure each user within their network can obtain a unique private IP address. It would seem class E could, and might already, function as a larger "private" IP address range.

They also need to route it locally. Guess what kind of problems they'd
run into...

BTW, even if this draft were implimented (which would require changes to
many operating systems, firewalls and local sites configs), it would just delay ipv4 exhausting by about 2 years, not allow to avoid it. What should
be done is greater effrot to migrate to ipv6 including supporting ides
like (some are from ppml):
  1. requirying at all RIRs that new ipv4 requesters include data on
     plans to migrate to ipv6.
  2. policy in all RIRs to make it very easy for any existing ipv4
     holder to get ipv6 block with no additional fees
  3. for vendors have ipv6 on by default on new systems and have it
     complain when it can not get ipv6 address from dhcp or can not
     do ipv6 routing, etc. That would put pressure on ISPs who will
     be asked about ipv6 more and more
  4. requirements for ipv6 for renew of ISP contacts by government
     and educational institutions (also more pressure to ISPs)

--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william@xxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]