> On Nov 21, 2022, at 11:12 PM, Joe Maimon <jmai...@jmaimon.com> wrote: > > John Curran wrote: >> .. >> That may (or may not) lead to you experiencing what you consider reasonable >> support costs for your customers, but as we all know, everyone else has >> customers who are the other ends of those connections who will call their >> ISP’s customer support line trying to figure out why they can’t get your >> customer (or can only get there intermittently) – so it appears that your >> proposed use of de-reserved and repurposed class E space has some real >> interesting implications about imputed support burdens on everyone else – if >> indeed the intended use case is includes providing connectivity to the >> public Internet. >> >> If you’re not proposing public Internet use, and rather just within your own >> administrative domain, then feel free to do – talk to your vendors, get them >> to support it, and turn it on. As you already noted, we really don’t >> centrally decide how everyone runs their own network – so using it locally >> is fine since it doesn’t presume others will diagnose connection problems >> with your customer traffic that quite reasonably is categorized as invalid. >> >> Thanks, >> /John >> >> p.s. Disclaimer: my views alone. Note: contents may be hot - use caution >> when opening. >> >> > > Right now the gossiped growing use of 240/4 in private and non standardized > fashions jeopardizes any potential use of it just as much as the factors you > describe.
Joe - That may be the case - I have no data either way, but it would not be surprising if some folks were paying very careful attention to their vendor support of 240/4 routing so that they can use this address space in a private context. However, I still have not heard any reasonable explanation for how connections using de-reserved 240/4 space in a public scope will be operationally viable, given that there will always be devices which do not forward such packets… > In either event, my main point of contention is in the lack of willingness > for serious and prudent consideration. Such as along the lines of what you > have brought up. You have an opportunity now - please explain how such connections will not pose an operations nightmare for the rest of the public Internet – it is not at all apparent how such is avoided if 240/4 is changed from reserved to general purpose (if that’s what you are suggesting that we should be doing.) Of course the other alternative is what Abe has been suggesting (repeatedly): note that it is _not_ using 240/4 for general purpose address space, but rather for their "Adaptive IPv4 Address Space” <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space/> mapping protocol. It seems to suffer from the same assumption of unmolested 240/4 transit in the public Internet (despite the current specification of such addresses as invalid) but then adds some further complication… something akin to CG-NAT but with their new EZ-IP protocol and “semi-public routers” as gateways doing the address mapping function. I am all for serious discussion of either of these interesting proposals, but if we’re going to seriously discuss such being deployed in the real-world then it had best start with the question of how they will handle the current Internet which frequently drops packets containing 240/4 addresses as invalid and will be doing so in places for many years to come. The upgrades in the real world to address that invalid-drop situation will take quite a while to happen (and note that time starts only after there’s an actual consensus for change in this regard), so – just as it was with IPv6 – it's incumbent on those proposing change to explain how interoperability occurs during the transition period. Thanks, /John p.s. Disclaimer(s): my views alone - this message made from 100% recycled electrons.
