[arin-ppml] Use of "reserved" address space.
tedm at ipinc.net
Mon Jun 28 12:39:18 EDT 2010
On 6/26/2010 9:54 PM, James Hess wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Joe Maimon<jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>> What is wrong with an approach of "All of the above"?
>> Anyways, strong odds suggest that removing restrictions on reserved space is
>> a much simpler code change than including another network stack, in any OS
>> and in any firmware.
> This is definitely true. Removing an arbitrary restriction on some
> IPs is much simpler a change than adding an extra IP stack. And it
> should require at most a minor update to the standards, to adjust the
> reserved blocks to indicate host and router software should support
> unicast for all those blocks from now on.
> As far as I can tell , the internet is not on course for a
> well-implemented transition to IPv6.
> It is on a collision course with IP exhaustion, and the fallout of
> the crash is NAT hell.
A lot of orgs will NOT even look at IPv6 until that crash happens.
That's just human nature.
> Even if a decision will not be immediately made to offer to allocate
> address space from those blocks.
> The availability of those currently reserved blocks could definitely
> be useful in the future, every effort should be made as soon as
> possible to encourage software being made now and in the future to
> support those IPs.... provisions should be made immediately, to
> require all internet hosts to be capable of receive and send packets,
> and be configured to use any parts of those special blocks that are
> not actually used and can be unreserved.
> You can implement IPv6 on your network, but you cannot force everyone
> you want to talk to to do so at this point. The cost of getting other
> people to use IPv6 would be very high. The cost of deploying IPv6 on
> your own network is irrelevent, once you have IPv6 networking, it's
> everyone else's network that matters.
> The cost of asking other networks to patch their routers to fix
> connectivity to formerly-reserved blocks is nil.
> You can even report to them "your equipment has this issue, bug,
> please do something about it"..
> Rather than having to say "We don't have IPv4 connectivity, will you
> please setup an IPv6 network, so we can talk to you?" Which is
> more likely to get "No"
Correct. I don't subscribe to the excuse that anyone is ever going
to be able to say "We don't have IPv4 connectivity" with a straight
face. There will ALWAYS BE an upstream they can get non-portable
numbers from. And if IPv4 is that scarce then there would be good
money to be made for IPv4 holders to sell (or offer for free)
IPv4 via tunnel, just like Hurricaine Electric is doing with IPv6
> as a response than "Ok.. we'll see if we can
> fix that"
> The real cost of deploying IPv6 is not just a code change to
> equipment, it is the IP network re-design, planning, etc, required.
> When the planning and design required to have a V6 network has not
> been done, the less costly alternative to V6 is probably NAT hell.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML