On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Alain Durand wrote:
Classifying it as private use should come with the health warning "use this
at your own risk, this stuff can blow up your network". In other words, this
is for experimental use only.
Do we need to classify anything (yet)?
I say the proof is in the pudding. Once some major user decides
they'll need 240/4 for something, they'll end up knocking their
vendors' (probably dozens) and their own ops folks' doors. Once they
get those vendors fixed up to support 240/4 in all the releases that
they're interested in, and ops to change configs, they can deploy
something in 240/4 for whatever (most likely private use, or private
use with a NAT to the outside).
If the users decide that maybe doing the legwork is too difficult..
well, maybe that's a sign that deploying 240/4 isn't worth the trouble
(yet) and reclassifying would also be premature.
It's not like the IETF or any other body is holding 240/4 hostage or
something. It's what the vendors' code and what ops folks have
configured that matters. If the code and configs can be changed and
widely deployed, we have some proof that doing this might make sense
at least in some context. Prior to that, there is no need to do
anything.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
