On Sep 23, 2011, at 9:53 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: It's hard to know for sure, but I believe there's greater risk associated with use of 240/4 than with a /10 from existing public IPv4 space. That is, I think more software would be needed to allow 240/4 to be used reliably. The IPv4 numbering problem isn't going to be solved. Solving that problem is much more difficult than migrating to IPv6. It's not for lack of business pressure; it's just inherently easier to build a new network with new address space, than to add another layer of indirection to the existing IPv4 network. If we were going to tackle the IPv4 address exhaustion problem by adding another layer of indirection, we needed to get started on it about 20 years ago when there was still a considerable amount of IPv4 space left to work with. For better or worse, that's not what happened. To me, it doesn't look like a step in the wrong direction. The only argument I can see against allocating this space is that it will prolong the life of IPv4 and CGN. But on balance, I think that's probably necessary, distasteful though it may be. Keith |
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf