[lacnog] Question about 240/4 space

[Fernando Frediani]

Well perhaps they should have not assumed anything, as Future Use could 
mean anything, including Unicast. The wrong assumption taken costed over 
6% of the total IPv4 space.

Fernando

On 25/07/2019 13:13, Eduardo Cota via LACNOG wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> Cancelar suscripcion:https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/attachments/20190725/fcac06a2/attachment.html>