Re: 240/4

I hadn't intended to post any further replies, but given the
source and
the message here, felt this warranted it:

> Compared to the substantial training (just getting NOC
monkeys to understand
> hexidecimal can be a challenge), back office system
changes, deployment
> dependencies, etc. to use ipv6, the effort involved in
patching systems to use
> 240/4 is lost in the noise. Saying "deploying a
large network with 240/4
> is a problem of the same scale as migrating to
ipv6" is like saying that
> trimming a hangnail is like having a leg amputated;
both are painful but one
> is orders of magnitude more so than the other.

So is this a statement that Cisco is volunteering to provide
free binary
patches for its entire product line?  Including the really
old stuff
that happens to be floating around out there and still in
use?

Because if it's not, your first stop should be to get your
own shop
in order and on board, because for a major router vendor to
not make
free binary patches available for its entire product line
certainly
does represent a huge roadblock with adoption of IPv4-240+.

The day you guys release a set of free binary patches for
all your
previous products, including stuff like the old Compatible
Systems
line, old Cisco gear like the 2500, and old Linksys
products, then
I'll be happy to concede that I could be wrong and that
vendors might
actually make it possible for IPv4-240+ to be usable.

Until then, this doesn't carry much credibility, and
continuing this
thread is a waste of time.  Nobody cares if you're able to
patch a 
current Linux system so that you can make one measly node on
the
Internet work with IPv4-240+.  It's getting the rest of them
to be
patched - including all the hosts and networking gear -
that's the 
problem.

If you just want to discuss your clever Linux patches, the
Linux
mailing lists are >>> thataway.

... 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.

On Fri, Oct 19, 2007, Joe Greco wrote:

> So is this a statement that Cisco is volunteering to
provide free binary
> patches for its entire product line?  Including the
really old stuff
> that happens to be floating around out there and still
in use?

Considering there's forklift upgrades required to support
changes in
technology anyway, I see this as not a problem. People can
choose if
they'd like to use that space.

People -chose- to use some new IP space which had once been
bogon
space and then spent quite a bit of time figuring out why
the hell
customers couldn't reach the general internet. People
adapted.


> The day you guys release a set of free binary patches
for all your
> previous products, including stuff like the old
Compatible Systems
> line, old Cisco gear like the 2500, and old Linksys
products, then
> I'll be happy to concede that I could be wrong and that
vendors might
> actually make it possible for IPv4-240+ to be usable.

You know, Cisco do release updates to old IOS software
periodically.
ISTR seeing a Cisco 2500 IOS update -this year-. Yup:

 c2500-is-l.123-23.bin  	16  	16  	25-JUL-2007

Its so not out of the realm of possibility Cisco, just as an
example
of one vendor of $LOTS, would do a software rebuild run just
for this
particular issue. 

All IETF "has to do" is possibly reclassify 240/4
from "experimental/future
use" to "experimental unicast space" to
satisfy the vendors that would
block on 240/4 being routable and satisfy those who are
worried that
putting it on the public internet is bad (and I'm one of
them for now);
then let the market decide what they want to do.





Adrian