|
|
 |
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
-
To: Geoff Huston gih@localhost
-
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch@localhost
-
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:46:27 +0100
-
Cc: Nigel Titley nigel@localhost, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@localhost, Max Tulyev president@localhost, address-policy-wg@localhost
On 31 okt 2007, at 0:04, Geoff Huston wrote:
Leo has already proved that a (fairly simple) reclamation job
takes a lot of time and resource. This is for a /8 that no one
much wanted and no one much used.
Was that the 14/8 thing? Only 129 individual addresses out of
16777216 where used. Maybe just reclaiming the other 16777087 would
have been more efficient.
But I'm pretty sure it's too late anyway, just like it's too late
to make 240/4 usable.
14/8 is useable - even with an extremely small number of legacy
allocations, the address block is useable. There is no OS stack that
says "bad address" for 14/8, which is the essential difference
between 14/8 and 240/4.
What I meant by "too late" is that a big push to get a good part of
the legacy class A blocks back is probably going to take so much time
that we won't have the extra space by the time that we're going to
need it. Obviously getting "easy" stuff such as 14/8 back is something
we can still do.
|
|
|
|
