The proposals I've seen all seem to deliver minimal benefit for the massive lift (technical, administrative, political, etc) involved to keep IPv4 alive a little longer.
Makes about as much sense as trying to destabilize US currency by counterfeiting pennies. Thank you jms On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:39 PM Joe Maimon <jmai...@jmaimon.com> wrote: > > > John R. Levine 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. > > And that is exactly why they said that even though they think it might > possibly entail similar effort to deployment of IPv6 and that IPv6 is > supposed to obsolete IPv4 before any such effort can be realized, they > would be amenable to reclassifying 240/4 as anything other than > reserved, removing that barrier from those whom may voluntarily decide > to follow that updated standard, should they find the time to squeeze in > another project the same size and effort of IPv6 into their spare time. > > Seems the IETF does indeed think it is the network police. And that they > get to decide winners and losers. > > > > 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. > > > > R's, > > John > > > > And indeed, they have done so. Now who looks silly? > > Joe > >
