Subject: Re: I want to reclaim 192.88.99.0/24 - does anyone have a problem with that?

From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 17:35:43 +0000

Nick, please excuse me again, as those who cook the lists are not sending list
post messages to my inbox currently. To your question below:

> Templin (US), Fred L wrote on 12/08/2021 18:00:
>> I think given the
>> points that I related to Nick and Dale above, however, it would seem that any
>> potential conflicts would be avoided?
>
> in general, special purpose address blocks are assigned by IANA. There's 
> nothing in the draft that requires 192.88.99.0/24, and given that it's 
> still visible to some degree in the dfz it would probably be advisable 
> to avoid using it.  Do you have a specific reason why 192.88.99.0/24 
> would work where another range wouldn't?

As you know, IPv4 global-use prefixes of /24 or shorter are a scarce commodity.
With 192.88.99.0/24, I see a prefix that appears to be on a trajectory toward
complete deprecation and that had an intended use that is closely related to
the new use proposed by OMNI. That is why I see reclaiming 192.88.99.0/24
as a "Plan A" that would make good use of a scarce commodity that would
otherwise wither and die.

The "Plan B" approach would be to earmark another IPv4 /24 or shorter prefix
for OMNI but that would require setting aside forever a scarce commodity that
would never again be useful for general Internetworking. So, from an altruistic
standpoint, it would seem that Plan A would be kinder to the Internet in general.
But, if folks are convinced that a Plan B approach is needed, we would of course
reluctantly regroup and pursue that path.

Thanks - Fred

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 19:40:58 +0100

> reluctantly regroup and pursue that path.

honestly, plan B sounds like the better option.  It's a single prefix 
and this is an entire protocol class.  A /24 would be 1:1.5E7 of the 
available address space, so there isn't a problem with the benefit:harm 
ratio.

Nick