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

-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus