On Aug 8, 2007, at 12:20 PM, william(at)elan.net wrote:
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 implemented (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 effort to migrate
to ipv6 including supporting ideas like (some are from ppml):
1. requiring 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)
It would appear both you and I are in agreement with the draft.
See:
http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2007/08/
msg00005.html
The draft classifies Class-E as "Limited Use for Large Private
Internets".
This range should not be divided into smaller regions as some
suggest. Large Private Internets that bridge into a IPv4/IPv6 Public
Internet represents a well considered long-term strategy. Declaring
this range available for use by Large Private Internets will expedite
a reduction in the dependence and use of public IPv4 addresses. A
bridge into the private IPv4 address space can map into unique IPv6
addresses while utilizing existing local equipment. (Yankee thrift.)
IPv6 is how IP address exhaustion is prevented. Assigning Class-E as
"Limited Use for Large Private Internets" provides a far less painful
transition to IPv6. Adoption of this draft will help forestall an
acceleration in IPv4 assignment rates. At present, allocating this
range for public use will likely afford much less than a year.
However, not declaring this range as private will deprive large
organizations and providers of a very attractive IPv6 transition
strategy. Once it becomes clear how this range of IP addresses might
be used in conjunction with IPv6, broader adoption of IPv6 is more
likely to occur with far less cajoling.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf