[address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:55:12AM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
> >Well, using 240/3 isn't something that realistic. It is a lot easier to
> deply IPv6 than to get 240/3 working for any significant amount of users.
> 
> Some may prefer easier ways (which is not that much easy to others) and some
> may not, 

240/3 is not going to be easy.  *Every* device out there would need to be 
changed (or at least *checked*) to ensure that it understands that these
addresse are not special and can be used as normal unicast space.

I could imagine that LI equipment that does not handle IPv6 will not
handle Class E space either...


> My question is that is this working group the right place to discuss about
> the 240/3 or it should be done in higher level like between RIRs or IANA?

It has been said before that 240/3 needs to be designated as unicast address
space in the IETF first, then IANA could distribute to the RIRs.

Pointers to the relevant drafts have been given.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160614/c88e9a6c/attachment.sig>