ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt

2007-08-08 11:25:57
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