[arin-ppml] the bad 240/4 idea, was Solving the squatting problem
farmer at umn.edu
Fri May 17 12:49:46 EDT 2019
Personally, I'm mostly neutral on the idea, it's not a problem I have. We
have deployed IPv6, and the 10 net and other specified private or
non-unique use block are sufficient for our needs for the foreseeable
future. At least until all you IPv4-Only fuddy-duddies retire or die off.
If you are a believer in IPv4-Only, I hope your 401K does really well so
you can retire early and make way for the IPv6-Only generation.
However, as an ARIN AC member, one of my roles is to try to help the
community to fulfill the community's Internet number resource policy
objectives. The only way forward for the allocation of 240/4 from an RIR
policy perspective I could think of was a global policy requesting IANA and
the IETF to allocate 240/4. Further, if I wasn't clear, I'm very dubious
that there is a consensus for that across the 5 RIRs need for such a global
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:54 AM John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
> In article <
> CAN-Dau0EBfSitNndJV2C9Dau7uWSgUKSm9ZyvQ89iUzp8Jbc-w at mail.gmail.com> you
> >I suppose we could try a global policy that would have to pass in all 5
> >RIRs requesting IANA and the IETF to allocate 240/4 for Private Use. If
> >that were to actually occur, it seems difficult for the IETF to ignore
> >a request.
> I'm not the IETF but I am pretty sure we would want to see some
> evidence that if it were allocated, it would interoperate. Good luck
> with that.
> If you want to use 240/4 for truly private use on your own network, go
> ahead. Nobody will ever know.
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML