Re: [sig-policy] draft-submission - draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt

[David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org>]

Stephen,

In order to take advantage of 240/4, new code will have to be  
deployed and there are systems that cannot/will not be upgraded.   
While an organization receiving a block out of 240/4 could  
conceivably guarantee none of their systems dropped 240/4 on the  
floor, it is a bit unlikely that the rest of the Internet could be  
trusted to behave similarly.  As such, people who received 240/4  
blocks would likely be quite unhappy.

If people are going to use 240/4, it'll have be done "among  
consenting adults".

Rgds,
-drc

On Aug 7, 2007, at 11:43 AM, Stephen Gill wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I just got through reviewing your Internet Draft on 240/4 and we had
> considered a different path in mind for this prefix with a draft  
> prepared to
> give it a slightly different meaning ;).
>
> We were curious what you thought of allocating 240/4 to public duty  
> for IANA
> assignment and future public global use.  Why do you feel this  
> should be
> RFC1918 address space instead of allocating it for wider Internet use?
>
> Clearly there would be operational hurdles and challenges to consider
> towards updating filters, code, and possible other nooks and  
> crannies but
> the net result and added lifetime for v4 might be worth the effort.
>
> Looking at the recent allocation history we've seen:
>
> 2007 8 /8's (9 minus 1 re-listed as reserved)
>
> 2006 10 /8's
>
> 2005 13 /8's
>
> 2004 9 /8's
>
>
>
> So this could possibly give us an additional 1-2 years of IPv4  
> lifetime
> (hopefully more as the end nears).  This would bring the current  
> aggregate
> number of /8's from roughly 44 to 60 available, an increase of  
> approximately
> 36% allocatable /8's.
>
> Does the need for more private addressing outweigh the need for  
> more public
> addressing?  At a minimum it would be great to add a paragraph  
> addressing
> this important question.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Stephen Gill, Research Fellow, Team Cymru
> http://www.cymru.com | +1 312 924 4023 | gillsr@cymru.com
>
>
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management  
> policy           *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy