[lacnog] Question about 240/4 space

[Eduardo Cota]

On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, Alejandro Acosta wrote:

> On 7/24/19 4:16 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote:
>
>>  
>> On this basis I wanted also to understand also who was the 'clever'
>> idea to deny forwarding to this packets in firmware to something
>> tagged as "Future Use", therefore that had the expectation to be used
>> one day in the future ?
>
>
> Hello, I have followed all the thread waiting for someone to answer the
> question above :-)
>

Of course I am not authoritative on this, but if I was designing any 
software/OS/firmware, why should I assume that "Future Use" will be 
"unicast"? We already have unicast, multicast, some limited forms of 
broadcast... Which forwarding rules should I use?

If "Future use" had been changed to "unicast" circa 1990-2000 (when 
address depletion was predicted and band-aids defined), nowadays we could 
be using them. Changing their status today seems useless.

Yours,
 	Eduardo.