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

Moin,

am 06.10.19 um 10:59 schrieb Gert Doering:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 12:38:14AM +0200, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
>> 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.

I didn't say it would be a quick win; I'm aware of the issues. 240/4 space
would remain of limited reachability for the forseeable future. After
being declared to become public space via an RFC, devices that still
receive updates will learn about 240/4, thus lessening the reachablility
issue over time, though.

Rationale: an internal network needing more than 16 million IPv4 addresses
(10/8) does have the power to solve their addressing needs with IPv6. This
isn't true for newcomers that have to deal with old players not enabling v6.

Please note: I'm not proposing do touch 240/4, 0/8 or 127/8, but _if_ those
are touched, they should be given to the public.

Regards,
-kai