Hi Iljitsch, On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:19:49 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I was wondering if there are any plans to change the status of > the class E address space (240.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255). > > Currently, there are approximately 221 usable /8s: classes A > (125), B (64) and C (32). (0.0.0.0/8, 10.0.0.0/8 and > 127.0.0.0/8 aren't usable at this time.) Adding 16 /8s from > class E space would increase this by 7%, and increase the > unused address space with something like 20%. > > However, it's almost certain that there are implementations out > there that won't accept 224.0.0.0/4 as regular unicast address > space. So if we want to be able to use class E space as such, > it is imperative that we announce this a *very* long time in > advance. > > Two other possible uses: > > It seems that there are now organizations who want/need more > private address space than is available as per RFC 1918. Using > class E space for this would make a lot of sense as this allows > for a lot of private space without sacrificing usable unicast > space. Presuming this extra "RFC1918" address space is going to be used in conjunction with NAT (a reasonable assumption I would suspect), I'd question any IETF endorsed measures which would encourage further adoption or use of NAT. I would suggest that if all the RFC1918 address space isn't big enough, it is time for the organisation in question to start deploying IPv6. Plenty of address space there, and no NAT uglyness. HTH, Mark. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf