Nick, please excuse me again, as those who cook the lists are not sending list post messages to my inbox currently. To your question below: > Templin (US), Fred L wrote on 12/08/2021 18:00: >> I think given the >> points that I related to Nick and Dale above, however, it would seem that any >> potential conflicts would be avoided? > > in general, special purpose address blocks are assigned by IANA. There's > nothing in the draft that requires 192.88.99.0/24, and given that it's > still visible to some degree in the dfz it would probably be advisable > to avoid using it. Do you have a specific reason why 192.88.99.0/24 > would work where another range wouldn't? As you know, IPv4 global-use prefixes of /24 or shorter are a scarce commodity. With 192.88.99.0/24, I see a prefix that appears to be on a trajectory toward complete deprecation and that had an intended use that is closely related to the new use proposed by OMNI. That is why I see reclaiming 192.88.99.0/24 as a "Plan A" that would make good use of a scarce commodity that would otherwise wither and die. The "Plan B" approach would be to earmark another IPv4 /24 or shorter prefix for OMNI but that would require setting aside forever a scarce commodity that would never again be useful for general Internetworking. So, from an altruistic standpoint, it would seem that Plan A would be kinder to the Internet in general. But, if folks are convinced that a Plan B approach is needed, we would of course reluctantly regroup and pursue that path. Thanks - Fred
