On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:57 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
I wasn't suggesting using general use for 240/ addresses, as endpoint names -
that's a hopeless cause, there are too many things out there that can't deal
with them. Who wants an address lots of people can't talk to (with, or
without, a mechanism to discover explicitly that they can't talk to it)?
I was suggesting them purely for infrastucture use, in (probably _very_
limited) usage domains where their visibility would be over a limited scope,
one where all devices can be 'pre-cleared' for using them.
I agree that this is an optimal scenario for near-term deployment of 240/4, and
that we should pursue the conversion of class E to unicast.
However, it could be compared to using RFC1918 space for such a purpose. For
instance http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kirkham-private-ip-sp-cores discusses
some of the potential issues of using RFC1918 for infrastructure links. I'd
guess that 240/4 has similar issues, and perhaps additional issues that we
haven't considered.
Cheers,
-Benson
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf