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 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

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