> From: Chris Donley <C(_dot_)Donley(_at_)cablelabs(_dot_)com>
> Both draft-bdgks and RFC 6319 describe the problems with 240/4 - too
> many legacy devices won't support it. ... In addition, back-office
> systems would need to be able to use the same 240/4 space for network
> monitoring/maintenance, billing, lawful intercept, etc.
I hear you. However, after thinking about it for a while, I still think we
ought to include a chunk of 240/ space _as well as_ some 'general use' space
(be it a /10 of that, or whatever).
My reasoning for adding a chunk of 240/ is that anytime it is suggested that
we use 240/ for some infrastructure purpose (it's clearly not feasible for
general use - too many legacy hosts), we get the same 'well, most things
won't handle it' response. Well, ya gotta start somewhere! If we never take
the first steps to making it usable, we'll never be able to take the second,
will we? And this seems as good a place as any to start...
Yes, I know, to begin with, it will not be useful. But sooner or later some
vendor will make their boxes deal with it. And when they do, with the crunch
for address space being what it is, some customer will say 'Great! This
solves my horrible problem {X}. I'll buy your stuff.' And then others will
follow.
And then 240/ will be available for _other_ infrastructure applications.
Really, with the severe crunch that's happening, we really need to figure out
how to make it available - and this seems as good a path as any.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf