[address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

NTX NOC wrote:

[...]

> I would like to ask a question what do people think about other
> side of IPv4 numeration space. Because we have in IPv4 a lot of
> addresses not in use at all but that space could be easy used.
>
> 240.0.0.0/4	Reserved (former Class E network)	RFC 1700
>
> it's 16 */8 networks. More then 256 Millions of routable and never
> used IPv4. 185/8 network has about 6.4M free and total RIPE has
> about 15M free IPv4 and we all say 185/8  will be enough for 2-3
> years and rest - for some more time. But 256 M Ipv4 space could
> be enough for years!
>
> Space reserved for future Use. But will the future come to us or not?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1700
>
> Is far as I see routers could easy start to use that IP space. People
> spend a lot of time and money to get some IPs but not to ask IANA to
> allow use this space. Technically it's very easy to start use IPs from
> such ranges.
>
> What does community thinks about it?

There are two I-Ds on this specific issue from 2008:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space-02
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02

I believe progress on them stopped because the cost/benefit analysis meant it 
made much more sense to deploy IPv6.

On the broader issue, decisions on what is and is not unicast IPv4 address 
space are made in the IETF. If you do want to head down this road, I suggest 
that you do so by writing an I-D and getting discussion on it in the IETF.

The RFC Editor has a page, with appropriate links, on the process, here: 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4968 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160612/b779219f/attachment.p7s>