| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
> Stephen Gill wrote: > Why do you feel this should be RFC1918 address space > instead of allocating it for wider Internet use? For the common good, it is clear that allocating 240/4 to public duty would be preferable. However, people assigned class E address would be second-class netizens because there are and will be for a long time a large number of hosts incapable of communicating with them. De-bogonization is easy (especially when one uses Team Cymru's feed ;-) rewriting IP stacks is hard and won't happen for older OSes and embedded. Allocating 240/4 to and extended RFC1918 would put these new addresses in the hands of large organizations. Supposedly the damage would be limited to people who have made the conscious decision of using the newly available class E. Unfortunately, there is even more room for abuse here, as large providers short on addresses would be handling 240/4 behind NAT. I already get a 10.net address on my 3G AT&T phone; I'd rather not have to deal with a 240 address instead of the 10. Although I did in the past write and support proposals to re-allocate class E to unicast, I now oppose these proposals. Too much trouble for too little gain. Michel.
