In message <505a8828.9040...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes: > On 09/19/2012 15:36, Joe Maimon wrote: > > So 6-8 years to try and rehabilitate 240/4 was not even enough to try? > > All the experts I consulted with told me that the effort to make this > workable on the big-I Internet, not to mention older private networks; > would be equivalent if not greater than the effort to deploy v6 ... and > obviously with much less long-term benefit. > > Doug
And for those cases I would agree with you and the experts. However it would have been possible to use 240/4 between CPE and a 6rd BR and CGN with CPE signaling that it can use 240/4 address it is assigned one. This could be done incrementally and would have been better than the /10 that was eventually allocated for that purpose. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
