christopherh1

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by christopherh1 3y ago

   You are correct, 240/4 was never marked as public space, it was marked as Reserved for Future Use. Network operators squatting on 240/4 space should have never done so as it was not decided as to what it was going to be used for,
2. 2.▲
   by christopherh1 3y ago

   This proposal is not regarding repurposing 240/4 as RFC1918 space. It is regarding reclassifying it as Unicast space. I would recommend reading the article.
3. 3.▲
   by christopherh1 3y ago

   If people are using space that has been marked as "Reserved For Future Use" within their networks, then this is a problem that they must deal with and it must not affect or influence global usage. What about networks squatting on
4. 4.▲
   by christopherh1 3y ago

   Our proposal isn't for 240/4 to be reclassified as RFC1918 space, it's for it to be reclassified as unicast space.