Joe,
> 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,
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