nanog mailing list archives
Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: Enno Rey <erey () ernw de>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 22:20:06 +0100
Hi, On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:01:35AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 11/20/21 10:44 AM, Chris Adams wrote: [] won out using unicast. Even if it has some niche uses, I seriously doubt that it needs 400M addresses. If you wanted to reclaim ipv4 addresses it seems that class D and class E would be a much better target than loopback.
I agree from an efficiency (= ratio of resources used vs. result achieved), but this wouldn't work in practice outside isolated environments for the same reasons why the 127/8 is not going to work: https://theinternetprotocolblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/06/some-notes-on-ipv4-address-space/ For the sake of the thread it should be noted that both the reception of and the response to the initial e-mail primarily happened over IPv6. I wish everybody a great weekend Enno -- Enno Rey Cell: +49 173 6745902 Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator
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 William Herrin (Nov 23)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public David Conrad (Nov 24)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 24)
- 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)