Re: 240/4

2007-10-16 Thread Daniel Senie


At 02:29 PM 10/16/2007, Pekka Savola wrote:



On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Alain Durand wrote:

Classifying it as private use should come with the health warning "use this
at your own risk, this stuff can blow up your network". In other words, this
is for experimental use only.


Do we need to classify anything (yet)?


Yes.


I say the proof is in the pudding.  Once some major user decides 
they'll need 240/4 for something, they'll end up knocking their 
vendors' (probably dozens) and their own ops folks' doors.  Once 
they get those vendors fixed up to support 240/4 in all the releases 
that they're interested in, and ops to change configs, they can 
deploy something in 240/4 for whatever (most likely private use, or 
private use with a NAT to the outside).


It would behoove us to allocate SOME of 240/4 as private address 
space, and mark the rest as "future, allocatable if it's deemed 
possible." If all of 240/4 is given over without guidance to private 
address use, a huge mess will follow, should we later decide it safe 
to use on the public network.



If the users decide that maybe doing the legwork is too difficult.. 
well, maybe that's a sign that deploying 240/4 isn't worth the 
trouble (yet) and reclassifying would also be premature.


It's not like the IETF or any other body is holding 240/4 hostage or 
something.


Yes, actually, it's specifically reserved, and it's in a block above 
multicast. I'm sure I was not the only one who saw that and said 
"this probably won't be 'normal' address space." If it's going to be 
used as unicast space, then it'd be helpful for an RFC to say so. 
However, I doubt that would happen, as it will likely be shouted down 
by those who see it as a threat to IPv6 deployment.


  It's what the vendors' code and what ops folks have configured 
that matters.  If the code and configs can be changed and widely 
deployed, we have some proof that doing this might make sense at 
least in some context.  Prior to that, there is no need to do anything.


Make a few /8's out of it available for experimental, private use. 
See what happens. But don't just throw the entire /4 out there for 
private use. We may later find it actually usable (or we may not) and 
want to visit that possibility later.





Re: 240/4

2007-10-16 Thread Bill Stewart

On 10/16/07, Justin M. Streiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The effort someone would spend figuring out if 204/4 is reachable and
> > not-pain-inducing in their infrastructure is better spent figuring out how 
> > to
> > make IPv6 work within their sphere of responsibilities.
> I agree.  The current rate at which blocks of IPv4 space are being
> allocated to the RIRs suggests that releasing a chunk from, say, 240/5 or
> 248/5 for consumption gets you about 1 year, tops.

A year is good.  My recommendation would be to adamantly refuse to let the RIRs
assign it for public space and insist that it's for experimental use only,
even though these days the place for research is IPv6 or its
interaction with IPv4,
and maybe even put out some interesting but not actually useful piece
of researchware
such as RFC1149bis (homeland security emergency warning notification
via location-agile mobile distribution of audio recordings using
peer-to-peer avian carriers.)

Then when we actually do run out of IPv4 space and major players start
complaining
that they're Just Not Ready for IPv6, because you know that's going to happen,
have the RFC author grudgingly agree to release the space and retarget
the research,
giving the carriers and other players one more year to get serious.

-- 

 Thanks; Bill

Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far.
And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.