On Tuesday 21 August 2007 02:47:16 ext Mark Andrews wrote:
Mark Andrews writes:
Cable companies need this amount of address space for
controlling the CPE boxes. The customers still get public
addresses. That's a minimum of two addresses per customer.
One of
Mark Andrews writes:
Cable companies need this amount of address space for
controlling the CPE boxes. The customers still get public
addresses. That's a minimum of two addresses per customer.
One of which can easily be an IPv6 address, so allocating 240/x for this
Mark Andrews writes:
Cable companies need this amount of address space for
controlling the CPE boxes. The customers still get public
addresses. That's a minimum of two addresses per customer.
One of which can easily be an IPv6 address, so allocating 240/x for
Geoff,
[cable-modems] was a scenario that was envisaged by the authors of the
draft as being consistent with the intended re-designated use and
consistent with the caveats noted in the draft.
For a closed system, which is what you are talking about, one could make
CLNS and TMIP work!! If
Some widespread IPv4 stacks refuse to handle these addresses, so
nobody would ever want to use them on the public IPv4 Internet.
And some widespread IPv4 stacks, refuse to handle IPv6 addresses.
it seems likely that more hosts currently support IPv6 than
support use of
It is not up to the IETF to engineer a transition to IPv6,
merely to make the tools available.
nor is it up to the IETF to engineer a (very slightly) longer lifetime
for IPv4.
Freeing up the former class E space
is an example of making a minor tool available, and it also sends a
strong
Keith Moore wrote:
One thing I'm pretty sure of is that allocating this space for another
RFC1918-like private network block isn't going to solve the collision
problem. I could see more utility in letting this be space for router
use only, say to allow cable ISPs to assign such addresses to
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-08-07 16:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title: Redesignation of 240/4 from 'Future Use to
Limited Use for Large Private Internets'
Author(s): P. Wilson, et
This document directs the IANA to designate the block of IPv4
addresses from 240.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255
(240.0.0.0/4) as unicast
address space for limited use in large private Internets.
Some widespread IPv4 stacks refuse to handle these addresses,
so nobody would ever
One thing I'm pretty sure of is that allocating this space for another
RFC1918-like private network block isn't going to solve the collision
problem. I could see more utility in letting this be space for router
use only, say to allow cable ISPs to assign such addresses to
non-publicly accessible
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some widespread IPv4 stacks refuse to handle these addresses,
so nobody would ever want to use them on the public IPv4 Internet.
And some widespread IPv4 stacks, refuse to handle IPv6 addresses.
it seems likely that more hosts currently support IPv6 than
Keith, all,
The common use case that people discuss is cable. My impression is that
CableLabs has done a pretty good job of driving IPv6 adoption in cable
modems for DOCSIS 3.0. The authors being from APNIC, I would imagine
there is a billion person problem (or so) to be solved?
What I'd
On Aug 8, 2007, at 4:22 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
On Aug 8, 2007, at 10:18 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Which widespread IPv4 stacks?
I think it might be easier to identify stacks that don't disallow
240/4. I don't actually know of any widespread ones.
I had a specific idea for
Hello;
On Aug 9, 2007, at 12:05 PM, Daniel Senie wrote:
At 07:38 AM 8/9/2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Aug 8, 2007, at 4:22 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
On Aug 8, 2007, at 10:18 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Which widespread IPv4 stacks?
I think it might be easier to identify
To: Marshall Eubanks
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt
...
If the IETF published an RFC that reassigned 240/4 to private address
space usage today, it would likely be possible for enterprises to use
it within a reasonably short period, perhaps a year or so
Marshall,
On Aug 9, 2007, at 4:38 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
If someone came out with a specific idea backed by hardware,
though, is there a reason not to let
them go forward ?
I suspect it would be hard to say without knowing what the idea is...
Rgds,
-drc
: Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF discussion
list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt
On Aug 8, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Aug 8, 2007, at 3:02 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
What happened to draft
Douglas Otis writes:
The draft classifies Class-E as Limited Use for Large Private Internets.
What large private internets are these, really? Are we discussing Google
potentially needing more than one /8 for its web servers, or are we
discussing providers (DSL, Wimax, 802.11, GSM, 3G or
It's not just host stacks and routers that would be impacted by this
change. Some applications recognize RFC 1918 addresses and treat them
specially, realizing that they don't work like ordinary IP addresses.
Such applications would need to be updated if another block of private
addresses were
Douglas Otis writes:
The draft classifies Class-E as Limited Use for Large Private Internets.
What large private internets are these, really? Are we discussing Google
potentially needing more than one /8 for its web servers, or are we
discussing providers (DSL, Wimax, 802.11, GSM, 3G
Hi Daniel,
[large snip]
Very nice post, as usual. However,
Daniel Senie wrote:
Initially allowing blocks from this space as additional
RFC1918-style space would provide a playground where
enterprises, users and vendors could test their wares,
without risk to the public Internet.
I have
On 2007-08-07 16:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : Redesignation of 240/4 from 'Future Use to Limited
Use for Large Private Internets'
Author(s) : P. Wilson, et al.
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 10:14:03 ext Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-08-07 16:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : Redesignation of 240/4 from 'Future Use to Limited
Use for
Large
On 2007-08-08 09:40, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
...
Some widespread IPv4 stacks refuse to handle these addresses, so nobody would
ever want to use them on the public IPv4 Internet.
That will be a bit of a challenge in private networks too :-)
Brian
---
C:\ver
Microsoft Windows XP
Brian E Carpenter writes:
On 2007-08-08 09:40, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
...
Some widespread IPv4 stacks refuse to handle these addresses, so
nobody would ever want to use them on the public IPv4 Internet.
That will be a bit of a challenge in private networks too :-)
Much smaller. If
What happened to draft-hain-1918bis-01, which tried to get more address
space for private Internets, but expired back in 2005?
I see the point about regarding 240.0.0.0/4 as tainted space and
therefore being less than useful on the public Internet.
Harald
Brian E
Carsten Bormann writes:
Cheaper to use IPv6, then.
Non-starter, I'd say.
I'm not sure using this class e thing + ipv6 is significantly more
expensive than using either alone, so we may be looking at way to let
some people transition with less pain: A big network can grow bigger
before some
seems like the last thing the Internet needs is more private address
space.
Keith
This document directs the IANA to designate the block of IPv4
addresses from 240.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255 (240.0.0.0/4) as unicast
address space for limited use in large private Internets.
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 10:14:03 ext Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-08-07 16:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : Redesignation of 240/4
On Aug 8, 2007, at 3:02 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
What happened to draft-hain-1918bis-01, which tried to get more
address space for private Internets, but expired back in 2005?
I see the point about regarding 240.0.0.0/4 as tainted space and
therefore being less than useful on the
On Aug 8, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Aug 8, 2007, at 3:02 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
What happened to draft-hain-1918bis-01, which tried to get more
address space for private Internets, but expired back in 2005?
I see the point about regarding 240.0.0.0/4 as tainted space
On Aug 8, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Aug 8, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Aug 8, 2007, at 3:02 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
What happened to draft-hain-1918bis-01, which tried to get more
address space for private Internets, but expired back in 2005?
I see
Title: RE: I-D
ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt
At 10:18 AM -0700 8/8/07, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Which widespread IPv4 stacks?
And then you quoted a message that shows examples of some
stacks:
C:\ver
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
C:\ping -n 1 247.1.2.3
Pinging 247.1.2.3
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Douglas Otis wrote:
Some larger providers and private organizations who depend upon private IPv4
addresses have complained there is no suitably large private IP address
range which can assure each user within their network can obtain a unique
private IP address. It would
-Baker, Phillip; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt
At 10:18 AM -0700 8/8/07, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Which widespread IPv4 stacks?
And then you quoted a message that shows examples of some stacks:
C:\ver
Microsoft Windows XP
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Douglas Otis wrote:
Some larger providers and private organizations who depend upon private IPv4
addresses have complained there is no suitably large private IP address
range which can assure each user within their network can
Hi,
On Aug 8, 2007, at 10:18 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Which widespread IPv4 stacks?
I think it might be easier to identify stacks that don't disallow
240/4. I don't actually know of any widespread ones.
Rather than wall off the space as private and thus put it beyond
any use we
We need to get some real economists involved here and some real lawyers. We
do have some net-savy lawyers on tap, but economists are going to be harder to
find, or rather they are going to be easy to find but not so easy to find good
ones who are not peddling some ideology.
I think getting
On Aug 8, 2007, at 1:22 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
On Aug 8, 2007, at 10:18 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Which widespread IPv4 stacks?
I think it might be easier to identify stacks that don't disallow
240/4. I don't actually know of any widespread ones.
Rather than wall off the
Not that I want to be in this argument, but I was intrigued by the
name-dropping from folks who're not silly...
Ned Freed wrote:
BTW, I suspect you are correct about about the IPv6 transition not being Pareto
efficient at the present time, but IMO the bigger issue is that it is widely
As for the address issue, I have to agree with PHB here as well: If these
addresses are usable in a reasonable time frame then we shouldn't be quick to
give them up for private use and if they are unusable in a reasonable time
frame it really doesn't matter what we do with them. So I guess the
41 matches
Mail list logo
