It might be useable as yet another private network reserved range. But like
others said only with a known good set of devices.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 2:05 AM Mikael Abrahamsson On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, David Lang wrote:
>
> > leaking to the outside in e-mail headers or other payload is no
> different
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, David Lang wrote:
leaking to the outside in e-mail headers or other payload is no different
from the current RFC local addresses
Well, it is. For instance spam detection software might think that class-E
in mail header means obligatory SPAM. I don't know, I'm just
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, David Lang wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Most host stacks do not handle 240/4 correctly. Getting this working
outside of a very closed and controlled network is not feasible.
You would need to validate all devices to support this 240/4 block that
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:09 PM wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:53:21 -0700, Dave Taht said:
> > An attempt to make "E" useful died a decade ago:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space-02
> >
> > Still, it would be a better world with 268m more routable ips in it,
> > wouldn't
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:53:21 -0700, Dave Taht said:
> An attempt to make "E" useful died a decade ago:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space-02
>
> Still, it would be a better world with 268m more routable ips in it,
> wouldn't it?
Not really. That ship sailed long ago - class E
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, Rich Brown wrote:
MY QUESTION: I have always believed that this netblock is not routable.
Is this true? (A simple yes/no answer would be sufficient.)
Most host stacks do not handle 240/4 correctly. Getting this working
outside of a very closed and controlled network is
> On 19 Oct, 2018, at 9:36 pm, Rich Brown wrote:
>
> MY QUESTION: I have always believed that this netblock is not routable. Is
> this true? (A simple yes/no answer would be sufficient.)
According to
https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:36 AM Rich Brown wrote:
>
> Sorry for distracting you from important things, but I have a question for
> people more knowledgeable about routing than I am...
>
> There's a person on the OpenWrt forum who is asking about using the
> 240.0.0.0/4 netblock for some
Sorry for distracting you from important things, but I have a question for
people more knowledgeable about routing than I am...
There's a person on the OpenWrt forum who is asking about using the 240.0.0.0/4
netblock for some (undefined) purpose. (If you're terminally curious, or need
another
