Re: 240/4 unreservation (was RE: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt> (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space) to Informational RFC)

[Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:15 PM, George, Wes wrote:

From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keith Moore
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:04 PM

 

The problem is in the zillions of systems in the field that have assumptions about 240/4 wired into them, most of which either have no automatic upgrade mechanism, aren't set up to use it, or aren't being maintained.  

<snip>

Honestly I'd guess that if vendors started changing their code today, it would be 10 years before 240/4 could be widely used in the field.

 

 

WEG] See that’s the point, I think we keep looking at this from a “boil the ocean” perspective. The question is not, “could we use 240/4 as more global unicast space?” as the ship sailed on that years ago when IETF apparently decided it was too hard to change and nothing should be done.

The question is, “if the space were unreserved, are there valid use cases where networks within a given administrative control might be able to make use of it?”

maybe.  But I personally don't believe that such addresses won't leak out. 

I'd say if a network operator wants to make a case for it using 240/4, it can write up an Internet-Draft detailing how it would be used along with containment measures, and petition IETF to ask IANA to permit such use.

The last thing that's needed is to open up that space for general use for anybody who thinks it's a good idea.  And I sympathize with the notion that any use of the precious remaining reserved v4 space should somehow credibly promote IPv6 adoption.

Keith

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf