> From: Mark Andrews <marka@xxxxxxx>
> And it needs a seperate I-D which indicates how equipement can signal
> that it supports 240.0/10. Returning such a address to equipment that
> is not prepared to receive is a *very* bad idea.
I wasn't suggesting using general use for 240/ addresses, as endpoint names -
that's a hopeless cause, there are too many things out there that can't deal
with them. Who wants an address lots of people can't talk to (with, or
without, a mechanism to discover explicitly that they can't talk to it)?
I was suggesting them purely for infrastucture use, in (probably _very_
limited) usage domains where their visibility would be over a limited scope,
one where all devices can be 'pre-cleared' for using them.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf