Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 1/12/24 11:54 AM, Darrel Lewis wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 2024, at 11:47 AM, Seth David Schoen <schoen () loyalty org> wrote:
> >
> > Michael Thomas writes:
> >
> > > I wonder if the right thing to do is to create a standards track RFC that
> > > makes the experimental space officially an add on to rfc 1918. If it works
> > > for you, great, if not your problem. It would at least stop all of these
> > > recurring arguments that we could salvage it for public use when the
> > > knowability of whether it could work is zero.
> > In 2008 there were two proposals
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fuller-240space/
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilson-class-e/
> >
> > where the former was agnostic about how we would eventually be able to
> > use 240/4, and the latter designated it as RFC 1918-style private space.
> > Unfortunately, neither proposal was adopted as an RFC then, so we lost a
> > lot of time in which more vendors and operators could have made more
> > significant progress on its usability.
> Well, we were supposed to all be using IPv6 (only) by now, and making 240/4 useable was just going to slow that process 
> down.
>
> IMHO, this is what you get when religion is mixed with engineering.

But it wouldn't be globally routable so it wouldn't change much. I'm not 
even sure it would change much on the ground for CGNAT deployment? You 
still need enough public addresses to service the load. It might make it 
easier than partitioning your internal net into multiple 10/8 but on the 
other hand you need to make certain your internal net still works with 
240/4.

I'm mostly throwing this out there as a way to shut down these kinds of 
discussions.

Mike