[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 12:38:14AM +0200, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
> Am 05.10.19 um 22:30 schrieb Michel Py:
> > This 240/4 as an extension of RFC1918 thing is the perfect example of it.
> 
> If 240/4 is to be given a different status than "reserved", the
> only valid option is "public unicast", spread across the RIRs as
> recovered space. As has been stated here may times, IPv4 is here
> to stay, so it's vital that relevant amounts of "new" space are put
> into the public pool.

I'd actually say "private" is a better denomination.

To make this useful as "public unicast", you need to upgrade *everything*
in the path between a device using 240/4 and "whatever it wants to talk to",
because un-upgraded routers or firewalls will just drop your packets
otherwise - so, if RIPE were to give out a subnet of 240/4, it would not
be very useful for "Internet" usage.

OTOH, if you're willing to upgrade your multi-million enterprise network
to make sure all devices support 240/4, it's all under your own control
and can be done.

(Would I do it?  No... anything old won't grow support for it, and anything
*new* can do IPv6 for new deployments - on islands, with gateways in
between, but incidentially that's the only way a 240/4 deployment could
succeeed as well.  But hey, not my career to bet on 240/4 being useful :-) )

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

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
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: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20191006/4c0e0fa5/attachment.sig>