[ppml] 240/4

[Tony Hain]

240/4 is essentially useless space at this point. If it were defined for use
by Greenfield deployments that only included new stack implementations that
did not need to talk to the 'old world', then it could be used. There are
very few deployments that would only include self-contained new
implementations though, as people would naturally want to mix in their
existing equipment rather than run parallel address spaces for old & new. If
one were going to go down that path, it would make more sense to use IPv6
for the new implementation. The only real argument for using 240/4 is
existing staff training. 

Tony 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: william(at)elan.net [mailto:william at elan.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 3:11 PM
> To: Paul Wilson
> Cc: alh-ietf at tndh.net; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [ppml] 240/4
> 
> 
> Entire 240/4 for private use? Is this maybe a bit overreaching?
> 
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Paul Wilson wrote:
> 
> > 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