Marshall, On Dec 5, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, David Conrad <drc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Frank, >> >> On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote: >>> The last state I'm aware of is that the 240/4 addresses minus one >>> were and still are (RFC 5735) reserved for IETF experiments, did I miss >>> some newer IETF consensus about this? >> ... >>> <http://omniplex.blogspot.com/2008/06/lost-found-268435455-free-ips.html> >> >> Does it actually matter? What RFCs say (or don't say) about 240/4 means precisely nothing to the deployed, non-field-upgradable CPE that I understand is driving the interest draft-weil. > > That IMO is the rock that proposals to use Class E have floundered on. > There is a lot of gear out there that will not be able to > deal with any Class E internetworking protocol, little prospect that > that will be changed any time soon, and a general feeling that it is > unwise to spend limited resources changing this. > While all of that is true to use the Class E space for general purpose usage, the current proposal for using it for the CGN is different. As far as I can tell, it would only require the CPE router, CGN's, and routers between the CPE and CGN's to support it. It would not require any support by the customer behind the CPE or the rest of the Internet. That the reason why several people have suggested it. I think it's reasonable for the ISPs who want to deploy this CGN gear to the deal with upgrading the CPE routers of their customers. They get the "benefit", they should incur the costs. The proposal to use some of the remaining public IPv4 space for this, IMHO has everyone else incur the costs. Bob _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf