Option A) Spend engineering time and equipment purchases to implement 240/4 as unicast globally. At present consumption rates and based on the number of entities in ARIN, RIPE, APNIC regions that could immediately take /18 to /16 sized blocks of it, please quantify exactly how many years this amount of "new" IP space you predict to be useful before once again reaching ipv4 exhaustion. End result: Problem not solved. Thus my analogy of building a sand castle while the tide is coming in.Option B) Spend engineering time and equipment purchases (yes, very possibly much more time and more costly) to implement ipv6.Even if option B is much more costly and time consuming, the end result will be much better.On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 at 14:48, Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> wrote:
Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> Quite simply, expecting the vast amount of legacy ipv4-only equipment
> out there in the world that is 10, 15, 20 years old to magically
> become compatible with the use of 240/4 in the global routing table is
> a non viable solution. It is not a financial reality for many small to
> medium sized ISPs in lower income countries.
>
> The amount of time and effort that would be required to implement your
> proposal is much better spent on ipv6 implementation and various forms
> of improved cgnat.
In specific focus on 240/4
Simultaneously claiming that enabling 240/4 as unicast involves
difficulty that in comparison makes IPv6 (and then you add in CGNAT!)
somehow more achievable is ridiculous.
Regardless of the exact scenario.
Joe