Nick, I think what I hear you and others with operational experience saying is that we should at least be running the trap lines on a Plan B approach before digging our heels in and insisting on 192.88.99.0/24 - Brian's note was also helpful. So, how does one go about earmarking an IPv4 /24 as a protocol-specific anycast prefix for IANA to place in the special-use IPv4 addresses registry - just put it in the "IANA Considerations" section of a standards-track ID and let nature take its course? Thanks - Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:nick@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 11:41 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Dale W. Carder <dwcarder@xxxxxx>; Hunter (US), Mark W <mark.w.hunter2@xxxxxxxxxx>; 6man WG <ipv6@xxxxxxxx>; IETF > discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; Nache (US), Samuel J <samuel.j.nache@xxxxxxxxxx>; Dickson (US), Sean M > <sean.m.dickson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Dillenburg (US), Don <don.dillenburg@xxxxxxxxxx>; Tran (US), Katherine K > <katherine.k.tran@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: I want to reclaim 192.88.99.0/24 - does anyone have a problem with that? > > > Templin (US), Fred L wrote on 12/08/2021 18:35: > > 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. > > honestly, plan B sounds like the better option. It's a single prefix > and this is an entire protocol class. A /24 would be 1:1.5E7 of the > available address space, so there isn't a problem with the benefit:harm > ratio. > > Nick
