the prefix still appears in the public Internet DFZ. This may cause
problems if it's redelegated. Would a different address range not be
better under the circumstances?
Nick
Templin (US), Fred L wrote on 12/08/2021 17:11:
FYI, responding to add 6man to the distribution.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 8:38 AM
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Hunter (US), Mark W <mark.w.hunter2@xxxxxxxxxx>; Nache (US), Samuel J <samuel.j.nache@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: I want to reclaim 192.88.99.0/24 - does anyone have a problem with that?
Hi, RFC3068 set aside the prefix 192.88.99.0/24 as the 6to4 Relay Anycast prefix, and
then RFC7526 came along and deprecated that use. I would like to reclaim the prefix
and use it for a different anycasting purpose - mostly within IPv4 networks that would
not be places where one would ordinarily find a 6to4 Relay router.
RFC7526 Section 7 says:
"Redelegation of this prefix for any use requires justification via an IETF Standards
Action [RFC5226]."
and I have a document that is aligned toward IETF Standards Track that would do
precisely this. This would be "Plan A", but if that would be unworkable then we may
need to press forward with a "Plan B".
There are those of you out there who know exactly what this is about and some have
even made remarks about it during recent IETF working group presentations. Now is
the time to speak up and put all concerns on the table - silence is no longer an option.
Thanks - Fred
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@xxxxxxxx
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
