> On Jul 22, 2019, at 20:14 , Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> 2. It was decided that the effort to modify each and every IP
>> stack in order to facilitate use of this relatively small block (16 /8s
>> being evaluated against a global
>> run rate at the time of roughly 2.5 /8s per month, mostly to
>> RIPE and APNIC) vs. putting that same effort into modifying each and every
>> IP stack to support
>> IPv6 was an equation of very small benefit for slightly smaller
>> cost. (Less than 8 additional months of IPv4 free pool vs. hopefully making
>> IPv6 deployable
>> before IPv4 ran out).
>
> Well, people are working on making 240/4 usable in IP stacks:
>
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt
>
> There have been patches accepted into some BSDs and into Linux tools/kernel
> and other operating systems to make 240/4 configurable and working as unicast
> space.
>
> I don't expect it to show up in DFZ anytime soon, but some people have
> dilligently been working on removing any obstacles to using 240/4 in most
> common operating systems.
>
> For controlled environments, it's probably deployable today with some
> caveats. I think it'd be fine as a compliment to RFC1918 space for some
> internal networks.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
I guess people can do whatever they want. I personally consider it to be a sad
sad waste of time that could be better spent deploying IPv6 to more places.
Owen
