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

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

 




On Aug 8, 2007, at 1:22 PM, David Conrad wrote:

Hi,

On Aug 8, 2007, at 10:18 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Which widespread IPv4 stacks?

I think it might be easier to identify stacks that don't disallow 240/4. I don't actually know of any widespread ones.

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.

Calling address space private obviously does not "put it beyond any use". In fact, there are folks out there who are burning public IP address space for internal infrastructure that could instead be using private space but can't because their internal infrastructures are too large.

The long term view for IPv4 employment should be an address space primarily used by internal networks. IPv4 is supported by a large array of SOHO equipment that will not disappear anytime soon. A near- term solution for IPv4 exhaustion will likely involve routers bridging between either private or public IPv4 address space into an Internet consisting of a mixture of IPv6 and IPv4. Internal use of IPv4 should accommodate internal deployments exceeding 16 million IP addresses. With rapid expansion of network equipment, 268 million addresses represents a far more reasonable range of addresses that rangers which are likely to be employed internally.

Such a larger range of internal addresses could even encourage use of older IPv4 router equipment to support these larger internal networks. An aggressive strategy using this approach could be far more effective at postponing an enviable exhaustion of IPv4 addresses than would a year to few months reprieve a public assignment of the Class E space might provide. Not having a larger IPv4 private address space will cause existing IPv4 equipment to be less valuable when it can only be utilized within extremely limited address ranges by any particular organization. : (

BTW, there is a typo after

2.  Caveats of Use

  Many implementations of the TCP/IP protocol stack have the
  204.0.0.0/4 address...

This should have been 240.0.0.0/4 addresses.

-Doug






_______________________________________________

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]