Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4

Ca By cb.list6 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 18 02:00:30 UTC 2015


On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, Jonas Björk <mr.jonas.bjork at me.com> wrote:

>
> >> Given how slowly IPv6 is deploying, this choice may prove to have been
> >> shortsighted.
> >
> > I doubt it. As you said, there is A LOT of crap out there that would
> have to be updated. Pulling a number out of the air, I'd guess *most*
> in-use devices would NEVER see such an update. Even from companies that do
> still exist. (Sadly, those are also devices that aren't going to see IPv6,
> either.)
>
> Most stuff out there do only care about that its subnet mask OR's up
> correctly with its ip and gw. Poof, there did 99.9 per cent of all devices
> get excluded. Most stuff that


Pretty sure this is wrong.


> do use and/or misuse this freightening block of darkest cyberspace are
> either high end network equipment (who drop) or some end users/mcast sender
> which are behind NAT anyway.
>
> I believe it's a great idea. Let's at least try it out, like an
> alpha-test. We choose a temporary /8 (easy to remember) and divide it into
> /16s or less, depending on how many interested candidates we are able to
> raise. After being approved by IANA we begin advertising our new prefixes
> for a finite amount of time. If the world ends, or is about to, we stop.
>
> I believe we would bump into minor caveats but ISP's are beginning to NAT
> their end customers due to the lack of free ips and I wouldn't want to live
> in a world where that was the norm. This madness has to stop and v6 won't
> salvate us for yet another total sonar eclipse or three.
>
>
Definately wrong. There are many networks larger and smaller than yours
that run ipv6-only (ds-lite, 464xlat, whatever facebook does in their dc).

You are wasting time and money.

Let us at least try it out - if it goes well we have bought us some time.
> If not, revert.
> Thank you for listening.
>
> br /Mr Bjork



More information about the NANOG mailing list