Hi, John:

0) Thanks for your comments.

1) Re: Ur. Pt. 1): I have recently been informed of such activities. So far, my attempt to submit a draft and to reach the group chairs have not been successful.

2) Re: Ur. Pt. 2): Our work looks very much inline with your Unicast project. My quick reaction is that EzIP appears to be a practical application that can benefit from your proposal. Although we further limit the application of 240/4 netblock to be "on-premises" (from the Internet core's perspective) use, the scheme of the EzIP deployment actually makes the scope bigger. Since I am not very familiar with the terminologies, does this interpretation make any sense? Please comment.

Regards,

Abe (2022-03-14 00:22)

On 2022-03-12 23:26, John Gilmore wrote:

Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:

1)    Thanks for confirming my understanding of the 240/4 history. 
Basically, those in charge of the Internet appear to be leaving the 
community in the state of informal debates, since there is no more 
formal IPv4 working group.

There is one; it's called "intarea" and is a working group of the IETF.

2)    On the other hand, there was a recent APNIC blog that specifically 
reminded us of a fairly formal request for re-designating the 240/4 
netblock back in 2008 (second grey background box). To me, this means 
whether to change the 240/4 status is not an issue. The question is 
whether we can identify an application that can maximize its impact.

https://blog.apnic.net/2022/01/19/ip-addressing-in-2021/

Please read our recent Internet-Draft on the subject:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/

In section 2, you will find references to all the previous allocations
(and requests for allocation) of the 240/4 address block.

	John

Virus-free. www.avast.com