On this thread I suggested to relax the IPv4 depletion issue by
replacing the Multicast addresses with a new "Multicast" Protocol Type
combined with the sender's Unicast address. Indeed, the reaction was absolute
silence. I expected at least opposition by referring to backward compatability
(what is taken, is taken) and that it may need some flag day,
announced well in advance. IMO, who can check for class D, may as well
check for a new protocol type. But the reaction was a storm of unsent
I also meant it architecturally: I think the type of operation (or should
I say TOS ?) is worth to be indicated in the header. It could be p2p-Unicast
as well as p2p-Anycast, p2mp-Multicast, p2mp-Broadcast, mp2mp-Multicast,
mp2mp-Broadcast, and (who knows ) mp2p. Indicating the type of operation by
means of different address ranges is a bad design.
Imagine, at some point in time in the future, there were some desire for
multiple address families.
Should then each AFI be combined with a respectively special address
range as to indicate the type of processing? It would even be worse