pwilson at apnic.net
Tue Apr 24 15:36:08 EDT 2007
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,
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
--On Tuesday, 24 April 2007 12:03 PM -0700 Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net>
> 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.
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
More information about the ARIN-PPML