On Nov 22, 2022, at 1:19 PM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> wrote:

John Curran wrote:

By the way, you shouldn’t feel particularly bad about skipping out on the interoperability requirement – anything involving interworking with the installed Internet is hard, and this is the same lesson that the IPv6 folks found out the hard way… I will confess that I was a member of the IETF's IPng Directorate and thus inherently complicit in that particular fiasco –

John,

Flags days on the internet of today have proven to be of limited value.

Joe -

I am not suggesting a flag day for 240/4 (or any other particular approach) - merely noting that anyone who wishes to promote 240/4 has a wide range of options to consider when they decide to get serious and actually consider interoperability approaches.

The part I feel bad about is that I am actually un-involved in much of anyway with the 240/4 or other ideas, my sole input has been to attempt to encourage serious consideration and to rebut naysaying.

Serious consideration requires a serious proposal - I don’t think we’ve seen one yet.

Yes, a standards update is only the beginning of a real effort, although plenty has changed even without that.

Yes, there may and likely will be a large extent of interoperability and usability challenges for quite some time, perhaps even enough time that the issue becomes moot.

Yes, it may be insurmountable.

Yes, it may render 240/4 unusable and undesirable to the extent that it has little contributory effect on IPv4.

However it may not and discouraging serious consideration is actually a contributing factor preventing any such potential.

I certainly am not discouraging serious consideration… simply awaiting something sufficient complete to discuss.

(Saying that “this proposal likely will create interoperability and usability challenges – but let’s all talk about the merits of it while ignoring that detail for now” doesn’t cut it – I’ve seen that approach once before and hasn’t turned out particularly well for anyone involved…)