Re: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt

On Aug 8, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:

>
> On Aug 8, 2007, at 3:02 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>
>> What happened to draft-hain-1918bis-01, which tried to get more  
>> address space for private Internets, but expired back in 2005?
>>
>> I see the point about regarding 240.0.0.0/4 as "tainted space" and  
>> therefore being less than useful on the public Internet.....
>
> RFC 3330 listed as not currently part of the public Internet:
>
> 0.0.0.0/8	"this" 		 16,777,216
> 10.0.0.0/8	"private"	 16,777,216
> 127.0.0.0/8	"loopback"	 16,777,216
> 169.254.0.0/16	"link-local"	     65,536
> 172.16.0.0/12	"private"	  1,048,576
> 192.0.2.0/24	"test-net"	        256
> 192.168.0.0/16	"private"	     65,536
> 192.18.0.0/15	"benchmark"	    131,072
> 224.0.0.0/4	"multicast"	268,435,456

This is simply wrong. Multicast is certainly part of the public  
Internet, it is certainly used on the
public Internet and (I might point out) people (including yours  
truly) make money from it.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

> 240.0.0.0/4	"reserved"	268,435,466
>                              -------------
>                                587,569,816 (13.68% of total non- 
> public)
>                              4,294,967,296 (total)
>                              3,707,397,480 (addresses public)
>
> Some larger providers and private organizations who depend upon  
> private IPv4 addresses have complained there is no suitably large  
> "private" IP address range which can assure each user within their  
> network can obtain a unique private IP address.  It would seem  
> class E could, and might already, function as a larger "private" IP  
> address range.
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf