[181167] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ca By)
Wed Jun 17 21:17:56 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <op.x0eggx2gtfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:17:53 -0700
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:38:32 -0400, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>
>> You may be confused. ARIN never possessed class E; it's held in
>> reserve by IETF. As much as I enjoy a good ARIN bashing, they and John
>> Curran are quite faultless here.
>>
>
> Quote-unquote, as in they didn't even bother *even proposing* to use Class
> E space. The reasons were numerous, btw. (hardcoded restrictions, erroneous
> classification as multicast, not worth the effort, etc.)
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02
Proposed and denied. Please stop this line and spend your efforts on ipv6
> Given how slowly IPv6 is deploying, this choice may prove to have been
>> shortsighted.
>>
>
> I doubt it. As you said, there is A LOT of crap out there that would have
> to be updated. Pulling a number out of the air, I'd guess *most* in-use
> devices would NEVER see such an update. Even from companies that do still
> exist. (Sadly, those are also devices that aren't going to see IPv6,
> either.)
>
