Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

["Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta com>]

Hi, Bill:

1)    Thanks for the reference. However, Informative Reference 7 of our 
IETF Draft cites another IANA document which puts the initial date of 
the 240/4 topic back to 1981-09 which was much earlier, in fact, 
coincided with that of RFC 791.

2)    My curiosity questions were not about "when" or "how", but "why" 
and for "whom". Particularly at a time that IPv4 was planned to be 
"dead" soon, what was its "Future" that deserved to be Reserved for?

Regards,


Abe (2022-03-11 09:36)



On 2022-03-10 23:16, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 7:51 PM Abraham Y. Chen<aychen () avinta com>  wrote:
> > 1)    " ...  should be ...  ":    Instead of "hand wave", this is a diplomatic expression to challenge the software 
> > engineers' knowledge of the networking program code for the current case. Ever since we started our study, we were quite puzzled by why the 
> > 240/4 netblock was regarded so special? Why no one could tell us what led to its current status, and even after IPv4 was set to transition to 
> > IPv6?
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml
>
> Which leads to RFC 1112 section 4, the disposition of which last
> changed in 1989.
>
> You are now informed about its current status along with when and how
> it got to be that way.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus