nanog mailing list archives
Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 12:47:16 -0500
Jonathan Kalbfeld via NANOG wrote:
How much runway would a single /8 give us?Up to 65280 /24's becoming available through registrars would be quite welcome to lots of small organizations or startups.
Is it worth the headache to gain a single /8 ?
I support serious consideration be given to determine the extent of the headache and to answer that question.
If we’re going to do something that Majorly Breaks the Internet(tm), why not talk about the 240/4 space instead?
I think 240/4 is indeed a very good idea deserving of proper consideration. That does not mean that other ideas arent worthy as well.
But at this point 240/4 is practically a no brainer.
<economics>We can’t fight address exhaustion on the supply side. The only way to fix IPv4 exhaustion is by shifting the demand curve inward and that is through IPV6 and aggressive reclamation of IPv4 space.<economics />Jonathan Jonathan Kalbfeld office: +1 310 317 7933 <tel:%28310%29%20317-7933> fax: +1 310 317 7901 <tel:%28310%29%20317-7901> home: +1 310 317 7909 <tel:%28310%29%20317-7909> mobile: +1 310 227 1662 <tel:%28310%29%20227-1662> ThoughtWave Technologies, Inc. Studio City, CA 91604 https://thoughtwave.com View our network at https://bgp.he.net/AS54380 +1 213 984 1000On Nov 17, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Jay R. Ashworth <jra () baylink com <mailto:jra () baylink com>> wrote:This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who noticed?https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-00.htmlThat's over a week old and I don't see 3000 comments on it, so maybe it's justme. So many things are just me. [ Hat tip to Lauren Weinstein, whom I stole it from ] Cheers, -- jra --Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra () baylink com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.infoSt Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Current thread:
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public, (continued)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Matthew Walster (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public John Levine (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Enno Rey (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public John Gilmore (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Måns Nilsson (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Fred Baker (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public John Kristoff (Nov 18)