240/4

Tue Oct 16 18:29:51 UTC 2007

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Alain Durand wrote:
> Classifying it as private use should come with the health warning "use this
> at your own risk, this stuff can blow up your network". In other words, this
> is for experimental use only.

Do we need to classify anything (yet)?

I say the proof is in the pudding.  Once some major user decides 
they'll need 240/4 for something, they'll end up knocking their 
vendors' (probably dozens) and their own ops folks' doors.  Once they 
get those vendors fixed up to support 240/4 in all the releases that 
they're interested in, and ops to change configs, they can deploy 
something in 240/4 for whatever (most likely private use, or private 
use with a NAT to the outside).

If the users decide that maybe doing the legwork is too difficult.. 
well, maybe that's a sign that deploying 240/4 isn't worth the trouble 
(yet) and reclassifying would also be premature.

It's not like the IETF or any other body is holding 240/4 hostage or 
something.  It's what the vendors' code and what ops folks have 
configured that matters.  If the code and configs can be changed and 
widely deployed, we have some proof that doing this might make sense 
at least in some context.  Prior to that, there is no need to do 
anything.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings