[ppml] 240/4

[Durand, Alain]

To the list of win 9x systems, you may add a lot others, think embeded systems that have old stacks... Testing those systems for compatibility with 240/4 will also take quite some time. 

In practice, 240/4 is not useable anywhere in the near future. Unfortunate but true.

Yes, this could be fixed but will take a large amount of resources from all equipment/software vendors and everybody using them to certify them.

IMHO, I'd rather like to see vendors spending their limited resources making their product fully workable with IPv6.

   - Alain.


----- Original Message -----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
To: 'Andy Davidson' <andy at nosignal.org>; 'David Conrad' <drc at virtualized.org>
Cc: 'Public Policy Mailing List' <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Wed May 02 16:43:16 2007
Subject: Re: [ppml] 240/4

Andy Davidson wrote:
> ...
> If Vendor fixes hit routing software in 2007, so that class E .. or
> 240/4 .. was nothing special, then we might just have bought
> ourselves a little more time, come July 2011 (Geoff's best guess
> today when IANA's v4 'stock' runs out).

The misguided notion that this is simply a routing problem will result in a
lot of burned resources with absolutely no gain.  Even if you magically had
the ability to route that space today, what customer end systems would you
be able to stick there? 

If you write the draft now and ram it through as an RFC in less than a year,
you would be extremely lucky to find 1% of the globally deployed end systems
actually able to exist in a network that has been assigned part of that
block before 2012. 

It is worth writing it up for Greenfield deployments of closed systems that
will not need to include any of the Win9x systems that will continue to be
in use.

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