Eric Kuhnke wrote:
Quite simply, expecting the vast amount of legacy ipv4-only equipment
out there in the world that is 10, 15, 20 years old to magically
become compatible with the use of 240/4 in the global routing table is
a non viable solution. It is not a financial reality for many small to
medium sized ISPs in lower income countries.
The amount of time and effort that would be required to implement your
proposal is much better spent on ipv6 implementation and various forms
of improved cgnat.
In specific focus on 240/4
Simultaneously claiming that enabling 240/4 as unicast involves
difficulty that in comparison makes IPv6 (and then you add in CGNAT!)
somehow more achievable is ridiculous.
Regardless of the exact scenario.
Joe
