On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 12:29 PM Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
What's the actual proposal for 240/4? Is it: "Make this usable by me on my /intranet/?" Is it: "Make this usable across the internet between bespoke endpoints?" Is it: "Make this usable for any services/users on the wider internet, treat it like any other unicast ipv4 address?"
Hi Chris, I can't speak for anyone else but my proposal is: (A) do the standards-level activity which is common to all three proposals, (B) give the vendors a couple years to catch up to the new standard, and then (C) pick a next step based on what's then the operational reality. The standards-level activity common to all three proposals is: 1. Define 240/4 excluding 255.255.255.255/32 as unicast addresses (no longer "undefined" future use) but continue holding them in reserve. 2. Advise hardware and software vendors to treat 240/4 as unicast when configured by the user or received by protocol. 3. Stop. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/