quietly....

[owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)]

On Jan 31, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Jeremy wrote:
> 
>> Has there been any discussion about allocating the Class E blocks? If this
>> doesn't count as "future use" what does? (Yes, I realize this doesn't *fix*
>> the problem here)
> 
> I think it has been discussed at various levels, but would likely have been dismissed for one or more of the following reasons:
> 1. A lot of people filter packets and/or prefixes 224/3 or 240/4 out of habit, right, wrong, or otherwise, so space from 240/4 is likely to have lots of reachability problems.
> 
Also, many systems will not accept this traffic or configuration as hard-coded system
parameters.

> 2. The effort expended by people to solve reachability problems from space they'd get out of 240/4 would be better put toward moving to v6.
> 
Not to mention the software updates required to make it functional would exceed the
software updates necessary for IPv6 _AND_ it has no lasting future.

> 3. Busting out 16 more /8s only delays the IPv4 endgame by about a year.
> 
Actually, if last year's consumption is any indicator, it's more like 10 months and
given the accelerating consumption of IPv4 overall, I'd say less than 9 is not
unlikely. I'm betting you're talking about more than 9 months to get the
software and reachability issues resolved.

Owen