> > A traceroute from my machine to 240.1.2.3 goes through six routers at my > ISP before stopping (probably at the first default-route-free router). >
My experience is the opposite. My home edge router (dd-wrt) will pass it, but nothing in my ISP's network will. $DayJob networks aren't worth checking, as I know I have 224/3 bogonized. I'd be curious to see the data you guys have collected on what it has been confirmed to work on if that's available somewhere. ( More for curiosity's sake ; I still think that making 224/3 universally available isn't worth the effort it would take to make it happen. ) On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 9:42 PM John Gilmore <g...@toad.com> wrote: > Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: > > > */writing/* and */deploying/* the code that will allow the use of > 240/4 the > > > way you expect > > > > While Mr. Chen may have considered that, he has repeatedly hand waved > that > > it's 'not that big a deal.', so I don't think he adequately grasps the > > scale of that challenge. > > From multiple years of patching and testing, the IPv4 Unicast Extensions > Project knows that 240/4 ALREADY WORKS in a large fraction of the > Internet. Including all the Linux servers and desktops, all the Android > phones and tablets, all the MacOS machines, all the iOS phones, many of > the home wifi gateways. All the Ethernet switches. And some less > popular stuff like routers from Cisco, Juniper, and OpenWRT. Most of > these started working A DECADE AGO. If others grasp the scale of the > challenge better than we do, I'm happy to learn from them. > > A traceroute from my machine to 240.1.2.3 goes through six routers at my > ISP before stopping (probably at the first default-route-free router). > > Today Google is documenting to its cloud customers that they should use > 240/4 for internal networks. (Read draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240 for > the citation.) We have received inquiries from two other huge Internet > companies, which are investigating or already using 240/4 as private > IPv4 address space. > > In short, we are actually making it work, and writing a spec for what > already works. Our detractors are arguing: not that it doesn't work, > but that we should instead seek to accomplish somebody else's goals. > > John > > PS: Mr. Abraham Chen's effort is not related to ours. Our drafts are > agnostic about what 240/4 should be used for after we enable it as > ordinary unicast. His EzIP overlay network effort is one that I don't > fully understand. What I do understand is that since his effort uses > 240/4 addresses as the outer addresses in IPv4 packets, it couldn't work > without reaching our goal first: allowing any site on the Internet to > send unicast packets to or from 240.0.0.1 and having them arrive. > >
