Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> Serious consideration requires a serious proposal - I don’t think we’ve
> seen one yet.

I would posit that draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240-03 (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/ ) should
be considered a serious proposal, in so much as what is proposing is the
most direct:

- Redesignate 240/4 from RESERVED - Future Use to be available for
allocation as 'standard' IPv4 addresses.

I personally disagree with their position, as does the IETF, so it doesn't
appear there will be any more movement on it, but I do believe that the
idea itself was serious.

Of course, I also agree with you that there have been plenty of un-serious
proposals floated too which don't really require discussion. :)

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 1:48 PM John Curran <jcurran () istaff org> wrote:

> On Nov 22, 2022, at 1:19 PM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com> wrote:
>
> John Curran wrote:
>
>
> By the way, you shouldn’t feel particularly bad about skipping out on the
> interoperability requirement – anything involving interworking with the
> installed Internet is hard, and this is the same lesson that the IPv6 folks
> found out the hard way…   I will confess that I was a member of the IETF's
> IPng Directorate and thus inherently complicit in that particular fiasco –
>
>
> John,
>
> Flags days on the internet of today have proven to be of limited value.
>
>
> Joe -
>
> I am not suggesting a flag day for 240/4 (or any other particular
> approach) - merely noting that anyone who wishes to promote 240/4 has a
> wide range of options to consider when they decide to get serious and
> actually consider interoperability approaches.
>
> The part I feel bad about is that I am actually un-involved in much of
> anyway with the 240/4 or other ideas, my sole input has been to attempt to
> encourage serious consideration and to rebut  naysaying.
>
>
> Serious consideration requires a serious proposal - I don’t think we’ve
> seen one yet.
>
> Yes, a standards update is only the beginning of a real effort, although
> plenty has changed even without that.
>
> Yes, there may and likely will be a large extent of interoperability and
> usability challenges for quite some time, perhaps even enough time that the
> issue becomes moot.
>
> Yes, it may be insurmountable.
>
> Yes, it may render 240/4 unusable and undesirable to the extent that it
> has little contributory effect on IPv4.
>
> However it may not and discouraging serious consideration is actually a
> contributing factor preventing any such potential.
>
>
> I certainly am not discouraging serious consideration… simply awaiting
> something sufficient complete to discuss.
>
> (Saying that “this proposal likely will create interoperability and
> usability challenges – but let’s all talk about the merits of it while
> ignoring that detail for now” doesn’t cut it – I’ve seen that approach once
> before and hasn’t turned out particularly well for anyone involved…)
>
> Best wishes,
> /John
>
> p.s. Disclaimer(s) - my views alone - please remember to have your arms
> and legs fully inside before the ride starts...