North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: 240/4

  • From: Alastair Johnson
  • Date: Wed Oct 17 23:11:20 2007

Stephen Wilcox wrote:
unfortunately i think this is a non-started for all except private deployments

the other point as was mentioned later in the thread is that this buys you very little in terms of time before v4 is gone.

I can see a reasonable amount of demand for 240/4 with carriers in a post-v4 exhaustion world. This would reduce the issues of having overlapping RFC1918 space (e.g. multiple VRFs of 10/8) and allow for simple contiguous networks in private clouds. A particularly interesting example is for numbering IPTV STBs.

This may also be useful for service providers wanting to do effectively 'site NAT' when they can't gain any more v4 resource, but still need to get v4 clients access to the v4 net somehow. Again this prevents duplicate or overlapping addresses internally.

I definitely support handing 240/4 into private network use; but as many have pointed out it is too tainted for public Internet use. While the RIRs never guaranteed reachability, I think this would be taking it a little too far.