nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
From: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:57:38 +0200
On 17 July 2015 at 00:29, Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com> wrote:
All I am advocating is that if ever another draft standard comes along to enable people to try and make something of it, lead follow or get out of the way.
If I understand correctly you want someone (not you) to write a RFC that changes the word "experimental" to "something else". But you do not want IANA and the 5 RIRs to implement policies to hand out this space. Nor do you expect any vendor to change anything? May i then suggest that "something else" could be "junk" or "useless" ? Fact is that it is junk. It is probably not even routable in the default free zone. Nobody is going to want a class E address. Even if your own equipment was updated to allow it, you would not be able to communicate with most of the internet. Tell me, in what timeframe do you expect that would change, if someone did write that RFC and got it approved? What everyone here is trying to tell you is that the consensus is that timeframe would be very long indeed. There are people using routers with 10+ year old firmware and you just wouldn't be able to communicate with these guys. There would be no transition plan. No NAT64, no dualstack nor any other mechanism that would save the day. Your customers would be very unhappy with your service. If YouTube had their servers on a class E address, my smart TV would stop being able to play YouTube. Samsung stopped making updates to that TV long ago. NAT wont do anything to help my TV as NAT only maps my internal network (192.168.x.y) and not the external IP (the class E address of say YouTube). Lets say we declare that 10 years has to pass and then it is my problem if I am still hanging onto such an old TV. But honestly, in 10 years nobody is going to care. It is all IPv6 by then. And the few things that are not is all taken care of by various transition technologies. You got it all wrong when you believe it is a top down decision. It is the opposite. You are fighting _consensus_. Nobody wants to change the status of class E because it would not work and would only confuse. Regards, Baldur
Current thread:
- RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion, (continued)
- RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Tony Hain (Jul 15)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Jared Mauch (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 15)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Doug Barton (Jul 15)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 16)
- RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Jacques Latour (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mark Andrews (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion John Levine (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Baldur Norddahl (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 17)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 17)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Shane Ronan (Jul 17)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 18)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Lee Howard (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Lee Howard (Jul 16)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 17)