Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211210951.AYC

[Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com>]

Lincoln Dale wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:20 AM Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com 
> <mailto:jmaimon () jmaimon com>> wrote:
>
>     Indeed that is exactly what has been happening since the initial
>     proposals regarding 240/4. To the extent that it is now largely
>     supported or available across a wide variety of gear, much of it not
>     even modern in any way.
>
>
> As someone who has been involved in the deployment of network gear 
> into class E space (extensively, for our own internal reasons, which 
> doesn't preclude public use of class E), "largely supported" != 
> "universally supported".
>
> There remains hardware devices that blackhole class E traffic, for 
> which there is no fix. https://seclists.org/nanog/2021/Nov/272 is 
> where I list one of them. There are many, many other devices where we 
> have seen interesting behavior, some of which has been fixed, some of 
> which has not.
>
>
> cheers,
>
> lincoln.

And I am sure you would agree that un-reserving a decade ago would have 
more than likely resulted in a greatly improved situation now. Along the 
lines that doing so now could still result in a greatly improved 
situation a decade hence. Should we still need it.

Joe