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.
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.
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.
We didn't choose it. ARIN and other RIRs started handing out that space, and if you didn't like it you were welcome to not have any more IP space.
There's a huge difference between getting a handful of networks to fix their outdated filters and getting "the internet" to all upgrade their software or replace old non-upgradable gear.
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
Lots of 2500s can't run that code. Where can I get a 240/4 compatible update of c5200-is-l.113-11a.AA.bin?
Interestingly, my unpatched Ubuntu 7.04 notebook would let me install routes for networks in 240/4, but would not let me configure an interface IP in 240/4.