Eliot Lear wrote: > Dear all, > > I bring to your attention draft-fuller-240space-00.txt. This draft > addresses 240.0.0.0/4, which is currently "reserved for future use." > The authors believe that the future is rapidly approaching, and that we > should begin to think about using this address space. There are a > number of potential uses. All currently contemplated uses are for > unicast address space. If approved, this draft would require > implementors to not generate errors in the face of these addresses. > Obviously getting new code out there takes time. During that time we > can contemplate appropriate uses. > > The draft is short. > > Comments?
It doesn't seem appropriate to recommend behavior other than the current
until these addresses are actually allocated. They remain "reserved for
future use" until actually used, not before.
This draft is odd in that it is recommending an action (treat as
unicast) without actually defining the behavior of that space. "Partly"
defining that behavior isn't, IMO, a useful step forward.
Joe
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Touch Sr. Network Engineer, USAF TSAT Space Segment
Postel Center Director & Research Assoc. Prof., USC/ISI
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
