> > Serious consideration requires a serious proposal - I don’t think we’ve > seen one yet. >
I would posit that draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240-03 ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/ ) should be considered a serious proposal, in so much as what is proposing is the most direct: - Redesignate 240/4 from RESERVED - Future Use to be available for allocation as 'standard' IPv4 addresses. I personally disagree with their position, as does the IETF, so it doesn't appear there will be any more movement on it, but I do believe that the idea itself was serious. Of course, I also agree with you that there have been plenty of un-serious proposals floated too which don't really require discussion. :) On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 1:48 PM John Curran <jcur...@istaff.org> wrote: > > > On Nov 22, 2022, at 1:19 PM, Joe Maimon <jmai...@jmaimon.com> wrote: > > John Curran wrote: > > > By the way, you shouldn’t feel particularly bad about skipping out on the > interoperability requirement – anything involving interworking with the > installed Internet is hard, and this is the same lesson that the IPv6 folks > found out the hard way… I will confess that I was a member of the IETF's > IPng Directorate and thus inherently complicit in that particular fiasco – > > > John, > > Flags days on the internet of today have proven to be of limited value. > > > Joe - > > I am not suggesting a flag day for 240/4 (or any other particular > approach) - merely noting that anyone who wishes to promote 240/4 has a > wide range of options to consider when they decide to get serious and > actually consider interoperability approaches. > > The part I feel bad about is that I am actually un-involved in much of > anyway with the 240/4 or other ideas, my sole input has been to attempt to > encourage serious consideration and to rebut naysaying. > > > Serious consideration requires a serious proposal - I don’t think we’ve > seen one yet. > > Yes, a standards update is only the beginning of a real effort, although > plenty has changed even without that. > > Yes, there may and likely will be a large extent of interoperability and > usability challenges for quite some time, perhaps even enough time that the > issue becomes moot. > > Yes, it may be insurmountable. > > Yes, it may render 240/4 unusable and undesirable to the extent that it > has little contributory effect on IPv4. > > However it may not and discouraging serious consideration is actually a > contributing factor preventing any such potential. > > > I certainly am not discouraging serious consideration… simply awaiting > something sufficient complete to discuss. > > (Saying that “this proposal likely will create interoperability and > usability challenges – but let’s all talk about the merits of it while > ignoring that detail for now” doesn’t cut it – I’ve seen that approach once > before and hasn’t turned out particularly well for anyone involved…) > > Best wishes, > /John > > p.s. Disclaimer(s) - my views alone - please remember to have your arms > and legs fully inside before the ride starts... > > >
