If a cable NAT box could survive on a tainted IPv4 we might well be able to
find a use for them.
I don't see how the addresses are any more viable as private space as public.
Given the stakes with IPv4 allocations I would like to see a technical strategy
in which the optimal course of action for all parties is to progress towards an
orderly IPv6 transition.
I do not beleive that transition to IPv6 is Pareto optimal today.
I don't think that it makes sense to consider re-allocating any address space
until we have such a strategy defined. It might make sense to tell IP stack
providers that they should regard the block as routable IPv4 uncast at this
point. I don't think it likely that we would roll out any new capablility for
IPv4 at this point.
________________________________
From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org]
Sent: Wed 08/08/2007 2:12 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt
At 10:18 AM -0700 8/8/07, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Which widespread IPv4 stacks?
And then you quoted a message that shows examples of some stacks:
C:\>ver
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
C:\>ping -n 1 247.1.2.3
Pinging 247.1.2.3 with 32 bytes of data:
Destination specified is invalid.
Ping statistics for 247.1.2.3:
Packets: Sent = 1, Received = 0, Lost = 1 (100% loss),
---
% uname -ro
2.6.22-8-generic GNU/Linux
% ping 247.1.2.3
connect: Invalid argument
How many more do you think we need?
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf