In message <55A6EE2B.5040201@ttec.com>, Joe Maimon writes:
joel jaeggli wrote:
On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
The jury is still out on class E, but the verdict is in for the community who created it.
joel@ubuntu:~$ uname -a Linux ubuntu 3.8.0-44-generic #66~precise1-Ubuntu SMP Tue Jul 15 04:01:04 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
joel@ubuntu:~$ sudo ifconfig eth0:0 240.0.0.1/24 SIOCSIFADDR: Invalid argument SIOCSIFFLAGS: Cannot assign requested address SIOCSIFNETMASK: Cannot assign requested address
So your point is that those who claimed it would not help managed to make it so?
No. The test was there before the requests which is why people were saying that it wouldn't work without upgrading lots of machines.
Would it have really hurt to remove experimental status and replace it with use at your own risk status? Even now?
No, but you couldn't assign the addresses to users for another decade or more without there being problems. We still haven't removed all the class based code out there and that is 20 years now. For quite a while one had to be careful to not use the first and last blocks when subnetting. The use of addresses ending in .0 (class C) or .0.0 (class B) is still problematic with supernets.
now go test that on every exisitng ipv4 device on the planet that's not getting an upgrade.
Thanks to (continuing) shortsightedness that course of action is still foreclosed.
it doesn't extend the life of ipv4 usefully and it wouldn't have if we started 10 years ago either.
You dont know either of those.
However, by continuing to insist on them, you make it so.
Do you think adding 2 more years would have done anything except let people procrastinate for 2 more years before starting to deploy IPv6? Vendors have had 15 years to develop products that support IPv6. That was more than enough time. We added IPv6 support to BIND back in the 1990's. DHCP has supported IPv6 just about as long. F was running on IPv6 years before the root servers officially supported IPv6. Just in time is nice if it works but it hasn't. We have people that are only contactable over IPv6 because they are now behind CGNs but everyone doesn't have IPv6 available to them. That is a failure of the industry to deploy IPv6 in time.
the goal in stringing along ipv4 is to not hose your current or potential customers rather than prevent still more obstacles to their success.
joel
At this point, you are running the risk of conflating your goals with your technical objections to the goals of others. And this has always been the real underlying issue.
Joe -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org