In message <CAAAwwbW2OH0-CpsVwYRfDODvjOTAVaQ8WdLUSsqvShs5CoTUYQ@mail.gmail.com> , Jimmy Hess writes:
On 9/19/12, Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com> wrote:
Why is this cast as a boolean choice? And how has the getting on with IPv6 deployment been working out?
"getting a single extra /4" is considered, not enough of a return to make the change.
I don't accept that, but as far as rehabilitating 240/4, that lot was already cast, I think, and the above was the likely reason, there have been plenty of objections which all amounted to "too much trouble to lift the pen" and change it.....
So if you want some address space rehabilitated, by a change of standard, it apparently needs to be more than a /4.
There is still no technical reason that 240/4 cannot be rehabilitated, other than continued immaterial objections to doing anything at all with 240/4, and given the rate of IPv6 adoption thus far, if not for those, it could possibly be reopened as unicast IPv4, and be well-supported by new equipment, before the percentage of IPv6-enabled network activity reaches a double digit percentage...
The work to fix this on most OS is minimal. The work to ensure that it could be used safely over the big I Internet is enormous. It's not so much about making sure new equipment can support it than getting servers that don't support it upgraded as well as every box in between.
That the discussion continues is in and of itself a verdict. Joe -- -JH
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org