Hi Bill
How would it be possible that something marked as *Future* Use be
blocked at the firmware level on any network equipment ?
If it says Future it means one day it would be used for something. It
could be for multicast it could be for Unicast, who knows. But adding a
hard-coded to block any packets within this IP space simply thrown all
in the bin.
I would undestand if one treated that as bogons for some time, but not
by having the idea to embed that in the firmware.
Agree that IETF could have been less narrow and spent more time trying
to find a usage that could have been beneficial to the Internet instead
of just bet on the fast deployment of IPv6.
Regards
Fernando
Em 13/09/2021 15:32, William Herrin escreveu:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:54 AM Fernando Frediani <fhfredi...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Hi Fernando,
IIRC, this was an IETF requirement. 240/4 is not reserved for future
unicast use, it's just plain reserved. The IETF could make it
multicast or some other odd thing tomorrow and any equipment treating
it as unicast would be malfunctioning.
Some systems treat it as unicast anyway. The Linux devs break the
standards in a number of adventurous ways. Not everyone does.
At any rate, blame for 240/4 not being usable for unicast belongs with
the IETF participants who have opposed designating it so, not with the
vendors who have complied with the IETF's designation.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
_______________________________________________
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.
