North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: 240/4

  • From: Pekka Savola
  • Date: Wed Oct 17 02:11:52 2007

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Daniel Senie wrote:
Yes, actually, it's specifically reserved, and it's in a block above multicast.

First, my primary assumption here is that it's never reasonable to expect that 240/4 would work as a publically routed address space (cf. Randy's mail on imposing demands on others). If there is agreement so far, and the addresses would be used in non-public contexts or NATted along the way, no experiment coordination is required.

You seem to be under the illusion that the IETF or IANA controls the Internet or private internets (e.g., experiments, private use, contexts not visible to the public Internet).

The operators who want to do something private with this space don't need the IETF or IANA approval to do so. So they should just go ahead and do it. If they can manage to get it to work, and live to tell about it, maybe we can consider that sufficient proof that we can start thinking about reclassification.

Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings