Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8)

[Ross Tajvar <ross () tajvar io>]

>      Editor's note: This draft has not been submitted to any formal
>      process.  It may change significantly if it is ever submitted.
>      You are reading it because we trust you and we value your
>      opinions.  *Please do not recirculate it.*  Please join us in
>      testing patches and equipment!

(emphasis mine)

Interesting choice to host it in a public Github repo, then...

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:17 PM Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >       2.      It was decided that the effort to modify each and every IP
> stack in order to facilitate use of this relatively small block (16 /8s
> being evaluated against a global
> >               run rate at the time of roughly 2.5 /8s per month, mostly
> to RIPE and APNIC) vs. putting that same effort into modifying each and
> every IP stack to support
> >               IPv6 was an equation of very small benefit for slightly
> smaller cost. (Less than 8 additional months of IPv4 free pool vs.
> hopefully making IPv6 deployable
> >               before IPv4 ran out).
>
> Well, people are working on making 240/4 usable in IP stacks:
>
>
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt
>
> There have been patches accepted into some BSDs and into Linux
> tools/kernel and other operating systems to make 240/4 configurable and
> working as unicast space.
>
> I don't expect it to show up in DFZ anytime soon, but some people have
> dilligently been working on removing any obstacles to using 240/4 in most
> common operating systems.
>
> For controlled environments, it's probably deployable today with some
> caveats. I think it'd be fine as a compliment to RFC1918 space for some
> internal networks.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike () swm pp se