[routing-wg][daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net: Re: 240/4]

[Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@localhost]

[From another list. Note lack of cross-posting.]

I suggest to the chair(s) to ask this question at the 
upcoming WG meeting.

Daniel


----- Forwarded message from Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@localhost -----

Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:12:03 +0200
From: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@localhost
To: Adrian Chadd adrian@localhost
Cc: "Church, Charles" cchurc05@localhost, nanog@localhost
Subject: Re: 240/4

On 18.10 10:48, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> 
> > 	Asking the whole internet to support 240/4 is going to tie up
> > valuable resources that would be far better off working on IPv6.  Keep
> > in mind that it's not just software patches.  Software vendors don't do
> > stuff for free.  I doubt ISPs are going to pay huge amounts of money to
> > support a peer crazy enough to try this.  And until tested, there is no
> > guarantee that hardware based routing platforms (your PFCs, etc) can
> > route Class E addresses as if they're unicast.
> 
> So how about pulling a reachability test and announcing a few /19's from
> 240/4, stick a website on it and get people to report back?

If there was serious community interest in this, I am sure the RIPE NCC
could be persuaded to test this as part of the well-oiled de-bogonising 
machinery. this immediately provides automated measurements as well.

It may take a little longer than sual to set up as we may want to ask
all our de-bogonising peers whether they are OK with this just to be sure.

Daniel

PS: Personally I am not convinced that this space will ever become useful for 
global routing. But we won't know for sure until we have tried it.

----- End forwarded message -----