I'm not opposed to making 240/4 unicast but I'd agree it wouldn't solve much globally. Nonetheless it might help for example some new org which can't get an IPv4 allocation (or not sufficient.) They may really need to do both IPv4 and IPv6 for example. (ok, here we go, point by point alternatives, we've heard them all ok, imagine there exists ONE worthy applicant for whom the alternatives won't work or put them at some unfair disadvantage.) But why bother solving any of this when we have stats! 1. Those stats aren't really that compelling, we have a bifurcated protocol space w/ maybe/arguably 40% at IPv6 after many years of trying. 2. I'm too lazy to hunt it down but how much of that IPv6 penetration are mobile phones and similar endpoints, captive devices with zeroconfig? Ok who cares if they are, but... 3. Even if we agree for the sake of argument that the net is roughly 50/50 v4/v6 that still means we're dependent on things like CGNAT and dual-stack and various other hacks which are needed to navigate this dual protocol universe which one could argue is PRECISELY what we didn't want back in the pre-IPv6 days. For example we might have lived up to the original idea of an internet and supported DECNET and CHAOSNET and SNA and XNS etc etc etc because we're heterogeneous, we're an INTERnet! But we didn't because in practice that stinks even if in theory it's as simple as getting them to float their protocols on IP directly or encapsulate them over IP or similar. Just set the IP protocol bits and to quote Jackie Gleason "awayyyy we go!" Or similar (I think DECNET went for DECNET over TCP but lo I wander.) It works, many have done it, and it always stinks. The devil was in the details like getting enough experts around to debug problems in your TCP/IP net and your XNS/IP or whatever nets. And the duplication and/or expansion of equipment etc. But that's where we are w/ IPv4/IPv6 and we think it's ok because we slowly backed up into this mess all the while saying just think about the rabbits Lennie (i.e., one day this will all be IPv6.) So mere penetration is more than a little deceptive. Granted there may be no great solution tho some proposals in the area of (perhaps dynamically) federating the address space are at least interesting in concept. But I guess my point is let's not discourage those who are trying, the problem is real. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*