Re: [Ext] Re: ipv4 multicast address ranges, actual usage.

On 12/18/19, 3:16 PM, "MBONED on behalf of Dave Taht" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

[...]

> Do you think anybody would notice if 225/8 - 231/8 became unicast? We
> have scanned the source code of the world and come up empty here.

I think the amount of attention required would vary depending on the defined scope. If you want to expand the RFC 1918 address space, most networks can ignore the change unless they want to add support in their own administrative domain (unless you leak). If you want to change them into Global Unicast addresses then multiple, independent network operators need to agree to deploy new code in operational support systems as well as network elements.

I should note that redesignation for 1/8, 233/8, and 240/4 has been proposed before:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hain-1918bis-01
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02

While those are not multicast address blocks, I think that the likely challenges are sufficiently similar to make it worth speaking with the authors of those drafts to understand why their proposals did not result in changes.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned