nanog mailing list archives
Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: Måns Nilsson <mansaxel () besserwisser org>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 22:13:12 +0100
Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 12:26:23PM -0800 Quoting John Gilmore (gnu () toad com):
=?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson <mansaxel () besserwisser org> wrote:The only viable future is to convert [to IPv6]. This is not group-think, it is simple math.OK. And in the long run, we are all dead. That is not group-think, it is simple math. Yet that's not a good argument for deciding not to improve our lives today. Nor to fail to improve them for tomorrow, in case we live til then.
The math is true today. Most people now have more devices than they have IP addresses. (And reachability should be choice, not shortage consequence) Increasing the available address space by at most a few percent at the price of a flag day is not a good return. (unless you are in a position to profit from the shortage, at which point all these crutch proposals look irresistible if not from a technical standpoint) Increasing the address space 79228162514264337593543950336 times at the price of rolling software upgrades that actually mostly are done (I haven't bought or commissioned non-v6 gear for 15 years now), even if there's a lot left to turn on and configure, is a slightly better proposition. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE SA0XLR +46 705 989668 MY income is ALL disposable!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description:
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 Denis Fondras (Nov 24)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Greg Skinner via NANOG (Nov 29)
- Re: Class E addresses? 240/4 history John Gilmore (Nov 22)
- Re: Class E addresses? 240/4 history Eliot Lear (Nov 22)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Måns Nilsson (Nov 20)
- 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)