nanog mailing list archives
Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 22:02:47 -0700
On Nov 23, 2021, at 10:33 AM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 5:03 AM Eliot Lear <lear () ofcourseimright com> wrote:So what's the road to actually being able to use [240/4]?1. Move it from "reserved" to "unallocated unicast" (IETF action) 2. Wait 10 years 3. Now that nearly all equipment that didn't treat it as yet-to-be-allocated unicast has cycled out of use, argue about what to allocate the addresses to for best effect.
Or… 1. IAB or IESG requests the IANA team to delegate one of the 240/4 /8s to the RIRs on demand for experimental purposes for a fixed period of time (a year or two?). 2. The RIRs, with input from their communities, formulate research programs to explore the viability of the space they have just received for “normal” unicast space. 3. The RIRs assign that space in accordance with those research programs. 4. At the end of the fixed period of time, research reports are published. 5. Armed with hard data on the usability of the 240/4 /8s allocated, people can scream past each other much more authoritatively on the topic of what to do with 240/4.
Bottom line though is that the IETF has to act before anyone else reasonably can.
To be honest, I don’t think it actually matters if it is the IAB, the IESG, or the NRO that directs the IANA to do stuff (although Kim @ IANA might have a different opinion and he’s more authoritative). What I believe matters is that there is consensus that additional data is needed. I’m not sure we’re at that point as yet — too many people appear to know The Truth. Regards, -drc
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 Michael Thomas (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Michael Thomas (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public james.cutler () consultant com (Nov 20)
- RE: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Richard Irving (Nov 21)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Eliot Lear (Nov 21)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 21)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Greg Skinner via NANOG (Nov 22)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Eliot Lear (Nov 23)
- 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 23)
- 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)