202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Abraham Y. Chen aychen at avinta.com
Fri Mar 11 14:36:46 UTC 2022

Hi, Bill:

1)    Thanks for the reference. However, Informative Reference 7 of our 
IETF Draft cites another IANA document which puts the initial date of 
the 240/4 topic back to 1981-09 which was much earlier, in fact, 
coincided with that of RFC 791.

2)    My curiosity questions were not about "when" or "how", but "why" 
and for "whom". Particularly at a time that IPv4 was planned to be 
"dead" soon, what was its "Future" that deserved to be Reserved for?


Abe (2022-03-11 09:36)

On 2022-03-10 23:16, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 7:51 PM Abraham Y. Chen<aychen at avinta.com>  wrote:
>> 1)    " ...  should be ...  ":    Instead of "hand wave", this is a diplomatic expression to challenge the software engineers' knowledge of the networking program code for the current case. Ever since we started our study, we were quite puzzled by why the 240/4 netblock was regarded so special? Why no one could tell us what led to its current status, and even after IPv4 was set to transition to IPv6?
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml
> Which leads to RFC 1112 section 4, the disposition of which last
> changed in 1989.
> You are now informed about its current status along with when and how
> it got to be that way.
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220311/c598260c/attachment.html>

More information about the NANOG mailing list