On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:57 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > 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. I agree that this is an optimal scenario for near-term deployment of 240/4, and that we should pursue the conversion of class E to unicast. However, it could be compared to using RFC1918 space for such a purpose. For instance http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kirkham-private-ip-sp-cores discusses some of the potential issues of using RFC1918 for infrastructure links. I'd guess that 240/4 has similar issues, and perhaps additional issues that we haven't considered. Cheers, -Benson _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf