Hi Daniel,
[large snip]
Very nice post, as usual. However,
Daniel Senie wrote:
Initially allowing blocks from this space as additional
RFC1918-style space would provide a playground where
enterprises, users and vendors could test their wares,
without risk to the public Internet.
I have to disagree with that, and here's why: today: I already get a
10/8 address on my AT&T cell phone. Should 240/4 become an extension of
RFC1918, it won't take operators long to deploy it to customers. In two
years, I don't want to have to fork out another $600 for a cell phone
because mine is not in the upgrade path anymore. Furthermore, I also use
this phone as a wireless modem for a laptop and even if I get a new cell
phone I don't want to have to replace that laptop because the PPP stack
or some other component on it does not understand 240/4.
Microsoft updates desktops and servers weekly or more often, and
people are fearful enough of security matters that they do apply
them. Linux vendors similarly release patches quite often. Router
vendors seem to have new software for one fix or another daily.
Only for "current" products. I don't think vendors will play ball nicely
on this one. Note that I am not saying they are wrong or bad; I have
shares of some of them; a reasonable amount of built-in obsolescence has
always been there and is good for business. I don't think we should give
vendors extra ammo to push yet another forklift upgrade though; as
discussed above, this proposal has wider ramifications than private
intranets. If it succeeds, it will force many people or organizations to
upgrade to the latest software (which might not be free) or worse have
to buy new hardware capable of running the latest software.
the changes required in IP stacks to enable Class-E as
valid addressing is minimal, resulting in little new code,
and thus little risk from untested code.
The changes might not be limited to software. Remember the good old days
with the classes based on the first bits:
0... Class A
10.. Class B
110. Class C
1110 Class D
1111 Class E
I would not be surprise to find this hard-coded in the silicon of some
hardware-optimized packet processing gear.
In short: I acknowledge the very valid points you make. In the end
though, even if I would have supported this a few years ago, I don't
support it anymore. Too little too late; too small the carrot and a too
big the stick.
Michel.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf