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

[David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>]

On Nov 23, 2021, at 10:33 AM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 5:03 AM Eliot Lear <lear () ofcourseimright com> wrote:
> > So what's the road to actually being able to use [240/4]?
>
> 1. Move it from "reserved" to "unallocated unicast" (IETF action)
> 2. Wait 10 years
> 3. Now that nearly all equipment that didn't treat it as
> yet-to-be-allocated unicast has cycled out of use, argue about what to
> allocate the addresses to for best effect.

Or…

1. IAB or IESG requests the IANA team to delegate one of the 240/4 /8s to the RIRs on demand for experimental purposes 
for a fixed period of time (a year or two?). 
2. The RIRs, with input from their communities, formulate research programs to explore the viability of the space they 
have just received for “normal” unicast space.
3. The RIRs assign that space in accordance with those research programs.
4. At the end of the fixed period of time, research reports are published.
5. Armed with hard data on the usability of the 240/4 /8s allocated, people can scream past each other much more 
authoritatively on the topic of what to do with 240/4.

> Bottom line though is that the IETF has to act before anyone else
> reasonably can.


To be honest, I don’t think it actually matters if it is the IAB, the IESG, or the NRO that directs the IANA to do 
stuff (although Kim @ IANA might have a different opinion and he’s more authoritative).  What I believe matters is that 
there is consensus that additional data is needed.  I’m not sure we’re at that point as yet — too many people appear to 
know The Truth.

Regards,
-drc