[ppml] 240/4

[Andy Davidson]

On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 10:09:09AM -0700, Tony Hain wrote:
 > Andy Davidson wrote:
 > > On 2 May 2007, at 21:43, Tony Hain wrote:
 > > > 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.
 > > Yes they are, but we are talking about being ready for 2012, when the
 > > Win9x base of systems will be old enough to marry without permission
 > > (in the UK).  "Modern" (by today's standard) OSes can be patched.
 > There is a vast difference between 'can' and 'will'. Win9x -can- be patched,
 > though it is not likely that anyone would bother to do the necessary testing
 > to find any hidden problems. The point is that even -if- MSFT posted an
 > update for every OS version they have ever shipped, they would not be
 > deployed in sufficient numbers to matter. The only people that actually

Hi, Tony

Ok, come 2012 your options for new networks are the old class
E networks or v6.  End user reachability is important to you.
Including to 20 year old operating systems like W9x.

We are looking into the future, trying to ensure business has
an option when this time comes.

Do we decide this year, whilst there is still time to plan
for the allocation of 240/4, to buy ourselves time and stand
a chance of using this otherwise dead space, or not?

I strongly endorse a new rfc to open up 240/4 as routable
unicast address space, and am happy to assist in the authoring
project.

,