Re: 240/4

> Joe,
> On Oct 18, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
> > The ROI on the move to v6 is immense compared to
the ROI on the move
> > to v4-240+, which will surely only benefit a few.
> 
> I am told by people who have inside knowledge that one
of the issues  
> they are facing in deploying IPv6 is that an IPv6 stack
+ IPv4 stack  
> have a larger memory footprint that IPv4 alone in
devices that have  
> essentially zero memory for code left (in fact, they're
designed that  
> way).  Fixing devices so that they can accept 240/4 is
a software fix  
> that can be done with a binary patch and no additional
memory.  And  
> there are a _lot_ of these devices.

Sure, I agree there are.  How does that number compare to
the number of
devices which can't or won't be upgraded to IPv4-240+?

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me
one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n
position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way
too many apples.

Joe,

On Oct 18, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> Fixing devices so that they can accept 240/4 is a
software fix
>> that can be done with a binary patch and no
additional memory.  And
>> there are a _lot_ of these devices.
>
> Sure, I agree there are.  How does that number compare
to the  
> number of
> devices which can't or won't be upgraded to IPv4-240+?

I'm not sure what the problem is.  If a machine isn't
upgraded to  
support 240/4, then you can't talk to it.  I would imagine
an ISP  
could (for example) ensure its routers could handle 240/4
and then  
configure those routers to use 240/4 for their loopback
addresses,  
thereby reducing that ISP's need of "regular"
space (be it public or  
private).

If someone is suggesting IANA allocate 240/4 to the RIRs as 

"regular" /8s for subsequent allocations to ISPs
or end users,  
they're deeply confused.

Regards,
-drc