Nick, it occurred to me that there is something else to think about. When RFC3068 set aside 192.88.99.0/24, it only defined a use for one single IPv4 unicast address out of the 254 available within that prefix. I therefore think that that one address must now and forever be considered as "off-limits" to any new proposal. Or, am I wrong about that? But, a new proposal might want to make use out of all available unicast addresses within the /24. If that were to be the case, would it provide more reason to avoid 192.88.99.0/24? Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 6:45 AM > To: Nick Hilliard <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Tran (US), Katherine K <katherine.k.tran@xxxxxxxxxx>; 6man WG <ipv6@xxxxxxxx>; IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; Nache (US), > Samuel J <samuel.j.nache@xxxxxxxxxx>; Hunter (US), Mark W <mark.w.hunter2@xxxxxxxxxx>; Dickson (US), Sean M > <sean.m.dickson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Dillenburg (US), Don <don.dillenburg@xxxxxxxxxx>; Dale W. Carder <dwcarder@xxxxxx> > Subject: Re: I want to reclaim 192.88.99.0/24 - does anyone have a problem with that? > > Nick, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:nick@xxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 3:41 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 23:10: > > > 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? > > > > one of the steps would be to describe to the ietf why 192.88.99.0/24 was > > significantly preferable to another address block, given that it is > > still routable on the big-I Internet dfz. > > The 192.88.99.0/24 is our Plan A; Plan B is to somewhere find a different IPv4 /24 > that is not currently used for any purpose and then ask IANA to register it as the > "OMNI Anycast Prefix" in the IPv4 special use address registry. > > Thanks - Fred
