On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:54 AM Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> 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.
Hi Fernando, IIRC, this was an IETF requirement. 240/4 is not reserved for future unicast use, it's just plain reserved. The IETF could make it multicast or some other odd thing tomorrow and any equipment treating it as unicast would be malfunctioning. Some systems treat it as unicast anyway. The Linux devs break the standards in a number of adventurous ways. Not everyone does. At any rate, blame for 240/4 not being usable for unicast belongs with the IETF participants who have opposed designating it so, not with the vendors who have complied with the IETF's designation. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin [email protected] https://bill.herrin.us/ _______________________________________________ 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.
