Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203140004.AYC

Abraham Y. Chen aychen at
Mon Mar 14 04:22:33 UTC 2022

Hi, John:

0)    Thanks for your comments.

1)    Re: Ur. Pt. 1): I have recently been informed of such activities. 
So far, my attempt to submit a draft and to reach the group chairs have 
not been successful.

2)    Re: Ur. Pt. 2): Our work looks very much inline with your Unicast 
project. My quick reaction is that EzIP appears to be a practical 
application that can benefit from your proposal. Although we further 
limit the application of 240/4 netblock to be "on-premises" (from the 
Internet core's perspective) use, the scheme of the EzIP deployment 
actually makes the scope bigger. Since I am not very familiar with the 
terminologies, does this interpretation make any sense? Please comment.


Abe (2022-03-14 00:22)

On 2022-03-12 23:26, John Gilmore wrote:
> Abraham Y. Chen<aychen at>  wrote:
>> 1)    Thanks for confirming my understanding of the 240/4 history.
>> Basically, those in charge of the Internet appear to be leaving the
>> community in the state of informal debates, since there is no more
>> formal IPv4 working group.
> There is one; it's called "intarea" and is a working group of the IETF.
>> 2)    On the other hand, there was a recent APNIC blog that specifically
>> reminded us of a fairly formal request for re-designating the 240/4
>> netblock back in 2008 (second grey background box). To me, this means
>> whether to change the 240/4 status is not an issue. The question is
>> whether we can identify an application that can maximize its impact.
> Please read our recent Internet-Draft on the subject:
> In section 2, you will find references to all the previous allocations
> (and requests for allocation) of the 240/4 address block.
> 	John

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list