In message <CAJNg7V+wxN_hsqGA_hQOr0Yc3Xyf1dqJQmaCDjzRu-zGCf_-=w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> , Marshall Eubanks writes: > 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? =A0What RFCs say (or don't say) about 240/4 mean= > s precisely nothing to the deployed, non-field-upgradable CPE that I unders= > tand 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. > > Regards > Marshall The annoying thing here is that the IETF has already spent more time arguing over whether to do this that it would have taken to do it. Add some signaling to PPP/DHCP that you are happy to receive a Class E address and it could have been done incrementally. ISP would have turned it on when there equipment supported it. The latest Windows and MacOS builds would have supported it. Similarly the laters Linus and *BSD builds would have supported it (some already do, sans signalling). CPE vendors would have turned it on. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf