On 11-12-03 7:25 AM, "Masataka Ohta" <mohta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Mark Andrews wrote: > >> 224/10 could be made to work with new equipement provided there was >> also signaling that the equipment supported it. That doesn't help >> ISP that have new customers with old equipment and no addresses. > >Yes, it takes time. > >However, 224/4 (or most of it) and 240/4 (except for 255.255.255.255) >should be released for unicast uses to reduce market price on >IPv4 addresses. I have not objection to this. But anything that requires replacement of equipment only will have longer term benefit. (Built it, Ship it, Stock it, Sell it, put it in....). I would also hope that when we have an opportunity to change out a box, it's with a IPv6 capable one (although it does not help that many boxes on the retail shelf are still IPv4-only - where we are). I wish to spend most of our time on IPv6 deployment (and only do what is necessary for IPv4 to keep the lights on). Activity working on getting equipment to utilize 240/4 seems like a lot of effort. I am not contending that the space will not have some influence on IPv4 "prices", but I am not sure if the IETF is the right place to attempt and control market forces and the IPv4 Futures Market. Victor K _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf