In message <5f90644c-5457-460f-9bc3-70802b13a...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write s: > > > >> Cisco is just one example. The fact is it will likely not work in > >> cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's, .... I understand > >> some progress has been made... but choose your scope wisely and pick > >> your battles and know that the weight of the world is against you > >> (cisco and msft) > >> > > > > I don't think I had general usage in mind, more along the lines of the > > "middle 4" in NAT444 that will be rolled out in many networks to > > conserve IP space. > > > Infeasible. NAT444 is primarily needed to avoid doing a CPE forklift > for nearly every subscriber. To deploy these addresses in that space would > require a CPE forklift for nearly every subscriber.
Firstly it is entirely possible to do this incrementally. Secondly it doesn't require a fork lift upgrade. A minimal upgrade is all that is required. For modern Linux boxes just setting a DHCP option would be enough. A two line fix in a config file. > >> @George > >> > >> Please don't speculating on when Cisco or Microsoft will support 240/4 > >> on this list. Ask your account rep, then report back with facts. > >> Arm-chair engineering accounts for too many emails on this list. > > > > The usage I have in mind would be transparent to the end stations and, > > frankly, someone who produces provider gear and CPE that can take > > advantage of that space is going to have a great selling point. There > > is some gold under there for someone. 240/4 is a great big "dig here" > > sign if they want some of it. > > > > > Maybe, but, CPE is rarely a unified solution, even within the same carrier. > > Owen -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
