Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:29:15 -0800
From: Vince Fuller <vaf@cisco.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Vince Fuller <vaf@cisco.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 001/001] ipv4: enable use of 240/4 address space
Message-ID: <20080111172915.GA6199@cisco.com>
References: <20080108011057.GA21168@cisco.com> <p73bq7smx1t.fsf@bingen.suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <p73bq7smx1t.fsf@bingen.suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1151
Lines: 28

On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:17:02PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Vince Fuller <vaf@cisco.com> writes:
> 
> > from Vince Fuller <vaf@vaf.net>
> >
> > This set of diffs modify the 2.6.20 kernel to enable use of the 240/4
> > (aka "class-E") address space as consistent with the Internet Draft
> > draft-fuller-240space-00.txt.
> 
> Wouldn't it be wise to at least wait for it becoming an RFC first? 

There is reasonable consensus on making use of 240/4; some applications,
such as ISAKMP and automatic ipv6-to-IPv4 tunneling, still need to determine
if they should treat the space as "public" or "private" but that shouldn't
affect whether kernel support is added.

Solaris recently added support for 240/4 and OSX already has it. I thought
the Linux kernel developers might appreciate having patches to do likewise.

I leave it up to you, the developers, to decide if you want to use these
patches.

	--Vince
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/