On Aug 9, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Douglas Otis writes:
The draft classifies Class-E as "Limited Use for Large Private
Internets".
What large private internets are these, really? Are we discussing
Google potentially needing more than one /8 for its web servers, or
are we discussing providers (DSL, Wimax, 802.11, GSM, 3G or other)
giving customers addresses from 240/4 via DHCP or PPP?
Employees using 240/4 is one thing. Your mother-in-law getting
247.1.76.22 from her cable modem is quite another.
It will likely take more than a handful of years before this range of
addresses can be made universally usable as public IP addresses.
Most unmodified equipment and software treat this range as non-
routable. Without some incentive beyond altruism, the requisite
changes will not occur in a timely manner. It would be wholly unfair
to suggest to those late in asking that their assigned public address
from this range. However, when employed as a private address, the
equipment and software that must be upgraded can be ascertained, and
those that would need to make upgrades are also both motivated and
able to ensure requisite changes are made.
A large company, Google, access providers and others will easily find
16 million addresses are easily exceeded. For example, by employing
IPv4 to IPv6 proxies, large existing deployments might be readily
transitioned to IPv6. When done at a large scale, each event would
have the potential of freeing up a Class-E worth of unencumbered IPv4
addresses. With this in mind, perhaps IPv6 should be assigned in
blocks of 268,435,456 to any large organization. : )
Yes, there will be considerable pain when using addresses within
Class-E. For this to be resolved in a timeframe that has a chance of
impacting the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses, these problems MUST BE
resolved within the private address space.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf