nanog mailing list archives
Re: 240/4
From: David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:31:33 -0600
Joe, On Oct 18, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Fixing devices so that they can accept 240/4 is a software fix that can be done with a binary patch and no additional memory. And there are a _lot_ of these devices.Sure, I agree there are. How does that number compare to the number ofdevices which can't or won't be upgraded to IPv4-240+?
I'm not sure what the problem is. If a machine isn't upgraded to support 240/4, then you can't talk to it. I would imagine an ISP could (for example) ensure its routers could handle 240/4 and then configure those routers to use 240/4 for their loopback addresses, thereby reducing that ISP's need of "regular" space (be it public or private).
If someone is suggesting IANA allocate 240/4 to the RIRs as "regular" /8s for subsequent allocations to ISPs or end users, they're deeply confused.
Regards, -drc
Current thread:
- RE: 240/4 (MLC NOTE), (continued)
- RE: 240/4 (MLC NOTE) Alex Pilosov (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 (MLC NOTE) S. Ryan (Oct 19)
- Re: 240/4 Joe Greco (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 Vince Fuller (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 Joe Greco (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 Alain Durand (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 Joe Greco (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 David Conrad (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 Joe Greco (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 David Conrad (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 19)
- Re: 240/4 Joel Jaeggli (Oct 18)