[arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at gmail.com
Mon Sep 13 15:57:22 EDT 2021


Hi Bill

How would it be possible that something marked as *Future* Use be 
blocked at the firmware level on any network equipment ?
If it says Future it means one day it would be used for something. It 
could be for multicast it could be for Unicast, who knows. But adding a 
hard-coded to block any packets within this IP space simply thrown all 
in the bin.
I would undestand if one treated that as bogons for some time, but not 
by having the idea to embed that in the firmware.

Agree that IETF could have been less narrow and spent more time trying 
to find a usage that could have been beneficial to the Internet instead 
of just bet on the fast deployment of IPv6.

Regards
Fernando

Em 13/09/2021 15:32, William Herrin escreveu:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:54 AM Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't know who was the "genius" back in the past on network vendors
>> who embedded to not forward traffic for that amount of /8's market as
>> Future Use. I think that was one of the most disastrous decisions ever
>> made in this area of IP space.
> Hi Fernando,
>
> IIRC, this was an IETF requirement. 240/4 is not reserved for future
> unicast use, it's just plain reserved. The IETF could make it
> multicast or some other odd thing tomorrow and any equipment treating
> it as unicast would be malfunctioning.
>
> Some systems treat it as unicast anyway. The Linux devs break the
> standards in a number of adventurous ways. Not everyone does.
>
> At any rate, blame for 240/4 not being usable for unicast belongs with
> the IETF participants who have opposed designating it so, not with the
> vendors who have complied with the IETF's designation.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list