Re: [sig-policy] draft-submission - draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt
- To: Stephen Gill <gillsr at cymru dot com>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] draft-submission - draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt
- From: David Conrad <david.conrad at icann dot org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:50:02 -0700
- Cc: pwilson at apnic dot net, "team-cymru at cymru dot com" <team-cymru at cymru dot com>, sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <C2DE36C8.6FAB5%gillsr at cymru dot com>
- List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <C2DE36C8.6FAB5firstname.lastname@example.org>
Hi, On Aug 7, 2007, at 2:48 PM, Stephen Gill wrote:
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.Do you have some sense as to what those systems are, code versions, and howmany? I know it is on the list of Juniper martians for instance.
As far as I'm aware, pretty much every version of every operating system out there (including Windows, MacOSX, Linux, etc) doesn't allow configuring 240/4. Whether or not those OSes are upgradeable depends on many factors, of course. E.g., I don't think Microsoft will be supplying a patch for Windows NT/98/etc.
And then there are the embedded systems.The point is, this is a change of rules way late in the game in terms of software deployment and backwards compatibility is of high importance to folks trying to sell services on the address space allocated.
Granted, it would take some time, testing, and planning but is it notconceivable that reachability could be attained to similar levels as that ofa normal newly allocated, de-bogonized /8?
I'd be very surprised that the amount of time necessary to sufficiently untaint a 240/4 block would be less than the amount of time necessary to have significant IPv6 deployment.
It seems worth considering if possible systems issues can be overcome withenough time given for planning if it extends the life of IPv4 by areasonable amount. It would also be useful to put those considerations intothe draft whatever the final concensus ends up being.
This was discussed, but the decision was to opt for brevity in the document.