Fernando Frediani wrote:
I don't know who was the "genius" back in the past on network vendors
who embedded to not forward traffic for that amount of /8's market as
Future Use. I think that was one of the most disastrous decisions ever
made in this area of IP space.
Using 240/4 on network equipment now a days is quiet easy, and stuff
has been fixed in both Network Equipment and Linux. However there are
other problems to be taken in consideration such as Network Operators
who hard coded filters on their Border Routers to not accept routes
from this range and mainly the legacy devices which will never get an
firmware upgrade to fix that. If I am not wrong Juniper routers
although they have fixed it they still come with the flag disabled by
default.
One good thing that 240/4 could be easily used and properly assigned
to Autonomous Systems by the RIRs is to be used for Backbone
Addressing, so all the currently "more noble" Public IPv4 used for
backbone addressing could be reused for proper Global Routing and the
240/4 for internal backbone addressing. In that way it is possible to
have proper Reverse DNS and also be used for peering between two
networks without risk of overlapping.
Would it be IETF task to allocate all those /8's to the RIRs if that
would be considered ?
Regards
Fernando
You are even more correct now than were those back then tilting at this
same windmill, with much of the same proposals.
Joe
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
