Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

[Matthew Walster <matthew () walster org>]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 22:14, Måns Nilsson <mansaxel () besserwisser org>
wrote:

> Subject: Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast
> public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:51:24AM -0800 Quoting William Herrin (
> bill () herrin us):
> All the heavy lifting in video production via IP is done over
> multicast. Mostly, it is internal to one organisation, and the 239/8
> (RFC2365) block is being used, but routing multi-gbit RTP flows over
> multicast is a thing where I work.

239/8 can essentially be looked at as RFC1918 space for multicast. Possibly
time to consider using SSM and the 232/8 block? I hear they have multicast
in IPv6 now. \s

Anyway, AFAICT the 224/4 proposal is actually the 225/8-231/8 proposal,
leaving 224/8 out from that block of otherwise 224/5 (as 232/8-239/8 are
not covered in the proposal).

M