> Editor's note: This draft has not been submitted to any formal > process. It may change significantly if it is ever submitted. > You are reading it because we trust you and we value your > opinions. *Please do not recirculate it.* Please join us in > testing patches and equipment!
(emphasis mine) Interesting choice to host it in a public Github repo, then... On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:17 PM Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > 2. It was decided that the effort to modify each and every IP > stack in order to facilitate use of this relatively small block (16 /8s > being evaluated against a global > > run rate at the time of roughly 2.5 /8s per month, mostly > to RIPE and APNIC) vs. putting that same effort into modifying each and > every IP stack to support > > IPv6 was an equation of very small benefit for slightly > smaller cost. (Less than 8 additional months of IPv4 free pool vs. > hopefully making IPv6 deployable > > before IPv4 ran out). > > Well, people are working on making 240/4 usable in IP stacks: > > > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt > > There have been patches accepted into some BSDs and into Linux > tools/kernel and other operating systems to make 240/4 configurable and > working as unicast space. > > I don't expect it to show up in DFZ anytime soon, but some people have > dilligently been working on removing any obstacles to using 240/4 in most > common operating systems. > > For controlled environments, it's probably deployable today with some > caveats. I think it'd be fine as a compliment to RFC1918 space for some > internal networks. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se >