This is basically exactly what has come out of the IETF for this and similar ideas.
I doubt it will ever stop them from being put forth though. On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 6:39 PM Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Option A) Spend engineering time and equipment purchases to implement > 240/4 as unicast globally. At present consumption rates and based on the > number of entities in ARIN, RIPE, APNIC regions that could *immediately* > take /18 to /16 sized blocks of it, please quantify exactly how many years > this amount of "new" IP space you predict to be useful before once again > reaching ipv4 exhaustion. End result: Problem not solved. Thus my analogy > of building a sand castle while the tide is coming in. > > Option B) Spend engineering time and equipment purchases (yes, very > possibly much more time and more costly) to implement ipv6. > > > Even if option B is much more costly and time consuming, the end result > will be much better. > > > > On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 at 14:48, Joe Maimon <jmai...@jmaimon.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Eric Kuhnke wrote: >> > Quite simply, expecting the vast amount of legacy ipv4-only equipment >> > out there in the world that is 10, 15, 20 years old to magically >> > become compatible with the use of 240/4 in the global routing table is >> > a non viable solution. It is not a financial reality for many small to >> > medium sized ISPs in lower income countries. >> > >> > The amount of time and effort that would be required to implement your >> > proposal is much better spent on ipv6 implementation and various forms >> > of improved cgnat. >> >> In specific focus on 240/4 >> >> Simultaneously claiming that enabling 240/4 as unicast involves >> difficulty that in comparison makes IPv6 (and then you add in CGNAT!) >> somehow more achievable is ridiculous. >> >> Regardless of the exact scenario. >> >> Joe >> >> >>
