Geoff Huston wrote:
I personally do not see any value in using
this address block up in a 1918 role.
Iljitsch van Beijnum
I tend to agree, not having heard the case for
additional private space.
I agree also.
My comfort level would be much higher if by the
time that we need the extra address space, we have
a fighting chance of actually being able to use it.
So I think it would be a good idea to make it very
clear that implementations must, in the absence of
more specific information, regard class E space as
regular unicast space,
Indeed, and I would go even further: we would need to allocate a few
test blocks out of 240/4 for usable but non-critical projects. Even
after vendors implement it, it will take years for natural router OS
upgrades to occur in order to use these new addresses. The code
modifications are not huge, but it is likely that on a given router OS
there are plenty of places where tagging class E off-limits is
hard-coded, which means it will indeed take time to debug on top of
propagating the updated router OS.
Geoff, besides the discussion we had a while ago about bogon lists being
the right answer, look at the time it takes to resolve bogon issue on
newly allocated blocks: it's only a matter of config and it takes
months. If on top of that there needs to be an OS upgrade, it could take
years.
Michel.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf