[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

>> Michel Py wrote :
>> This 240/4 as an extension of RFC1918 thing is the perfect example of it.

> Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote :
> If 240/4 is to be given a different status than "reserved", the only valid option is "public unicast",

I agree with unicast, but not public.

> spread across the RIRs as recovered space.

I have to disagree with that. I would agree if it was an achievable goal, but it is not.
The multiple attempts over the years to make this space available have all failed, and there is a reason for it : it would create a second-class address space, that the devices with unpatched kernels would not be able to access. In other words : it would require an update to every device that connects to the Internet, which is too much hassle.

> As has been stated here may times, IPv4 is here to stay, so it's vital
> that relevant amounts of "new" space are put into the public pool.

Maybe so, but that battle can not be won. Besides, a /4 would buy how much time ? a year or two ? it's futile. Focus on things that have a chance.


> Enno Rey wrote :
> or about the rumours that the DoD has been encouraged to make some of its address space available to ARIN ;-)

The smiley was right on ! DoD has a trillion dollar budget, even at $1000 / IP it would not make a difference.
They don't know anything that is less than a billion ;-)

I had that question once, actually.
- 10/8 is too small, which of the un-announced DoD blocks is the best to squat ?
- You must be kidding, you want to squat IP space from people who have nukes and have used them on civilians before ?
- Oh, they can't nuke us. They have a big base 1/4 mile away.
- Oh great, now you are telling me that they have a freaking brigade next to your backyard and you are going to hijack one of their class A?
- Squat, not hijack. Yeah, they'll never know about it.

30/8. There are so many orgs using it that the DoD will never release it.

Michel.