[ppml] 240/4

Tony Hain alh-ietf at tndh.net
Tue Apr 24 15:59:37 EDT 2007

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.


> -----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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list