This discussion relates to only one step of a number of potential increments.
I believe it is a bad idea to conflate all of these potential address space recovery changes as the same singular discussion. Not all the decisions being made on intranets are sane. Not all of these proposals make sense. Not all of these proposals make sense right away. Instead, they should be done piecemeal, and each one should be discussed seperately, or we will lose the way. Some of these address space changes will NEVER be globabaly routable because it has already been stomped on by squatters and will create visibility issues, or maybe NEVER is a decade hence. Other parts of thes address space changes have the potential for becoming globally routed. It is important to be careful and not just turn it into a free-for-all where people will make further bad decisions. Jeroen Massar <jer...@massar.ch> wrote: > Hi Claudio, > > Why not update the BADCLASS check? > Though likely for IPv4 it will reduce to 0 items at one point and then can be > eliminated indeed. > > > Note that there are checks for loopback (127.0.0.0/8), there are a bunch of > organisations that started using everything but 127.0.0.0/24 (thus 127.0.0.1 > specifically) in their internal networks, routed, just like a normal prefix; > as that gives one kinda easily a whole /8 minus one /24. > Same for 0.0.0.0/8, there are orgs that instead of finally upgrading to IPv6 > just started using that, next to 240/8 and whatever they could find. > > Greets, > Jeroen >
