[ppml] 240/4

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> 	again, if you think this is useful idea, TRY IT OUT.
> 	then document the effects and what needs to be changed
> 	before writing a wellmeaning but worthless document.

Trying it out, only results in documenting the current state of affairs.
It is more important to set the stage for future work than to document
current technical details. We already know that current software
cripples 240/4 addresses. That is not an issue. The purpose of the RFC
is to get 240/4 addresses *OUT* of reserved status and back into play.

> 	i suggest that you attempt to use 240.240.240.0/24
> 	on a subnet in your local infrastructure and then tell us
> 	the results.

This is useless info. The people who should be trying 240/4 will be
those who have access to system source code so that they can identify
what needs to be patched to enable 240/4 to work. Obviously, they don't
need an RFC to get permission to do the work, but if an RFC *DID*
release 240/4 from purgatory, I have no doubt that many such people will
do the work.


> # ifconfig eth1 240.240.42.14
> SIOCSIFADDR: Invalid argument
> 
> on a couple of Linux 2.4.x kernels.  (old i know)

Useless info. What code did you patch to fix this? What variable did you
create in the /proc filesystem to enable/disable use of 240/4 addresses?

--Michael Dillon