[From another list. Note lack of cross-posting.] I suggest to the chair(s) to ask this question at the upcoming WG meeting. Daniel ----- Forwarded message from Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> ----- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:12:03 +0200 From: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au> Cc: "Church, Charles" <cchurc05@harris.com>, nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: 240/4 On 18.10 10:48, Adrian Chadd wrote:

...

Asking the whole internet to support 240/4 is going to tie up valuable resources that would be far better off working on IPv6. Keep in mind that it's not just software patches. Software vendors don't do stuff for free. I doubt ISPs are going to pay huge amounts of money to support a peer crazy enough to try this. And until tested, there is no guarantee that hardware based routing platforms (your PFCs, etc) can route Class E addresses as if they're unicast.

So how about pulling a reachability test and announcing a few /19's from 240/4, stick a website on it and get people to report back?

If there was serious community interest in this, I am sure the RIPE NCC could be persuaded to test this as part of the well-oiled de-bogonising machinery. this immediately provides automated measurements as well. It may take a little longer than sual to set up as we may want to ask all our de-bogonising peers whether they are OK with this just to be sure. Daniel PS: Personally I am not convinced that this space will ever become useful for global routing. But we won't know for sure until we have tried it. ----- End forwarded message -----