I don't know who was the "genius" back in the past on network vendors
who embedded to not forward traffic for that amount of /8's market as
Future Use. I think that was one of the most disastrous decisions ever
made in this area of IP space.
Using 240/4 on network equipment now a days is quiet easy, and stuff has
been fixed in both Network Equipment and Linux. However there are other
problems to be taken in consideration such as Network Operators who hard
coded filters on their Border Routers to not accept routes from this
range and mainly the legacy devices which will never get an firmware
upgrade to fix that. If I am not wrong Juniper routers although they
have fixed it they still come with the flag disabled by default.
One good thing that 240/4 could be easily used and properly assigned to
Autonomous Systems by the RIRs is to be used for Backbone Addressing, so
all the currently "more noble" Public IPv4 used for backbone addressing
could be reused for proper Global Routing and the 240/4 for internal
backbone addressing. In that way it is possible to have proper Reverse
DNS and also be used for peering between two networks without risk of
overlapping.
Would it be IETF task to allocate all those /8's to the RIRs if that
would be considered ?
Regards
Fernando
On 13/09/2021 14:35, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
The MAJOR problem with the use of 240/4 is the hard coding of these
addresses in Router and Workstation operating systems. This is NOT an
ARIN problem.
I understand it is just a flag and a recompile in Linux, but trying to
get Cisco and Microsoft to go along with this idea is going to take a
bit more effort than complaining about it on this list.
I see no reason to do that, as I have more IPv6 addresses than I can
dream of.
I have been running my home network off of ONE ipv4 address, as well
as two /48s of IPv6. I do not understand why IPv6 is so hated. I
also understand that Win10/11 does not like it all if you turn off the
V6 stack and throws random errors.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Sun, 12 Sep 2021, Joe Maimon wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
The refusal to deploy 240/4 are mostly on the basis that it would
take just as much code effort to do that as it would to put v6 on a
box, with the exception that most boxes already have a v6 stack, so
actually more effort, yet yielding substantially less gain.
Turns out that was wrong for the last 20 years. Time to shut that one
down. It was a stupid self fulfilling mantra from the getgo. As if it
is the place of the IETF to determine how engineers ought to spend
their efforts. Their role is to enable. Not throw up roadblocks. Same
here.
Also, your wording is misleading.
More correctly, "the refusal to step out of the way of deployment of
240/4 (by those who may have wished to do so)"
Joe
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
