nanog mailing list archives
Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:57:24 -0500
Fred Baker wrote:
I have read through this thread, and you'll pardon me if it sounds like yet another rehash on yet another list. You might take a look at https://packetlife.net/blog/2010/oct/14/ipv4-exhaustion-what-about-class-e-addresses/, which responds to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wilson-class-e. I'm not sure what has changed in the past lotsa years other than which prefix people want to make essentially the same arguments about.
What has changed is that the intervening years have demonstrated that the proponents were right and the detractors were wrong. Very much so.
On this thread alone very thoughtful and knowledgeable sounding folk have made it quite clear that the efforts involved are a lot less and the potential benefits a lot more than the naysayers mantra.My observation has been that people don't want to extend the life of IPv4 per se; people want to keep using it for another very short time interval and then blame someone else for the fact that the 32 bit integers are a finite set. If you don't think that's a true statement, I'd be very interested to hear what you think might be true.
Its time to update some assumptions. Joe
Current thread:
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public, (continued)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Greg Skinner via NANOG (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Carsten Bormann (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public bzs (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Masataka Ohta (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public John Curran (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public jim deleskie (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Justin Keller (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Fred Baker (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Måns Nilsson (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Masataka Ohta (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Måns Nilsson (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Masataka Ohta (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Måns Nilsson (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Matthew Walster (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Måns Nilsson (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Matthew Walster (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 18)