240/4

Wed Oct 17 06:09:48 UTC 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