[ppml] 240/4

[Durand, Alain]

Private networks does not mean greenfield deployments...
and even in the case of greenfield deployments, those are
NOT done only with brand new code developped especially
for that purpose, it is done with a large portion of
off-the-shelves equipments, so the problem to deploy
class E addresses are mostly the same in private networks
as they would be in public networks; ie, class E is NOT a
viable solution.

   - Alain. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Tony Hain
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:00 PM
> To: 'Paul Wilson'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [ppml] 240/4
> 
> I agree it could be used for Greenfield deployments that are 
> based on completely new implementations. Most discussions 
> though don't make that clear, and by talking about them as 
> generic use for private networks people leap to the 
> assumption that the block would be used the same way as 1918. 
> I have no problem defining the 240/4 block, as long as it is 
> very clear that the space is not generically useful for 
> products not specifically designed to use it.
> 
> Tony
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:36 PM
> > To: alh-ietf at tndh.net; 'ARIN PPML'
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] 240/4
> > 
> > Tony,
> > 
> > The suggestion was to use the space for private use, not for global 
> > unicast.  The critical difference in private networks is that the 
> > operators can be expected to know what gear they have and 
> exactly what 
> > needs to be upgraded, and also that the impacts of any problems are 
> > localised.  Many such network deployments could occur independently 
> > and in parallel without impact on the rest of the network.
> > 
> > A lot of legacy equipment may well be hard to upgrade, but a lot of 
> > new services these days are being developed or planned using new 
> > technologies that should be much more amenable to upgrade (set top 
> > boxes, VOIP gear, appliances etc).
> > 
> > My other comment in today's session was that I was told 
> last year of a 
> > planned national telco network deployment which would require 8 /8 
> > blocks within the space of 2 or 3 years.  The operator in that case 
> > would have been happy with private space, if there was enough of it.
> > 
> > The cost of redesignating the class E address space seems very low, 
> > and without any downside, for the potential benefits which 
> could occur 
> > (even if used by only a handful of networks which would 
> otherwise ask 
> > for IPv4 public addresses).
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > 
> > --On Tuesday, 24 April 2007 12:03 PM -0700 Tony Hain 
> > <alh-ietf at tndh.net>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > I just heard a part of Paul's comment about 240/4, and it sounded 
> > > like Scott commented about implementations being difficult to fix.
> > >
> > > Even if the vendors implemented a change and shipped it within 18
> > months
> > > (an aggressive window), there is a very, very, very large 
> installed
> > base
> > > of systems that can't/won't be upgraded to allow use of a 
> block that
> > was
> > > 'undefined' at the time they were tested & shipped. By the time 
> > > those
> > work
> > > their way out of the network, we will be long past the 
> point where 
> > > the
> > > 240/4 block might have been useful.
> > >
> > > Tony
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy 
> Mailing List 
> > > (PPML at arin.net).
> > > Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy 
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>