On Nov 18, 2021, at 9:00 AM, John R. Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
>> The only effort involved on the IETF's jurisdiction was to stop squatting on 
>> 240/4 and perhaps maybe some other small pieces of IPv4 that could possibly 
>> be better used elsewhere by others who may choose to do so.
> 
> The IETF is not the Network Police, and all IETF standards are entirely 
> voluntary.

True…

> Nothing is keeping you from persuading people to change their software to 
> treat class E addresses as routable other than the detail that the idea is 
> silly.

Of course, it’s not quite that simple.

First, 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml 
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml> 
would need to be updated, then the RIRs would need to issue a request according 
to https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/allocation-ipv4-rirs-2012-02-25-en 
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/allocation-ipv4-rirs-2012-02-25-en>. At 
that point, existing requests lodged at the RIRs could be fulfilled using the 
formerly reserved space. Network operators that received the allocations could 
then number their devices with the new address space and announcing that space 
into the routing system.

Of course, there are probably an unknowable number of “bogon” filters out there 
that are hardcoded into various bits of infrastructure that would need to be 
updated. There are also various hardware, firmware, and software IP stack 
implementations, perhaps sitting in closets somewhere, that still think they 
can’t use reserved space that would need to be updated/replaced.

As far as I can tell, assertions about the scale of that update/replace 
exercise are based on limited data. Perhaps as an alternative to declaring 
various chunks of reserved space as free for use, a chunk of that space could 
be allocated to one or more of the RIRs and announced with a set of services 
placed upon it to see just how much actually breaks, similar to what APNIC and 
Cloudflare did with 1.1.1.0/24?

Regards,
-drc

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Reply via email to