nanog mailing list archives
Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 22:11:57 -0800
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:02 PM David Conrad <drc () virtualized org> wrote:
On Nov 23, 2021, at 10:33 AM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:1. Move it from "reserved" to "unallocated unicast" (IETF action)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?).
Hi David, I like research but what would the RIRs study? The percentage of the 2021 Internet reachable from a station assigned a 240/4 IP address? Suppose it's 95%? Or 50%? Is there a difference? Neither one is enough to deploy the addresses for 2021 global use.
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.
Which is not particularly valuable. We already know the addresses are dysfunctional on the 2021 Internet. There's no credible disagreement on that point. We don't particularly need to know it more authoritatively. What we need to know more authoritatively is: IF we tell vendors and operators to expect those addresses to come into use and alter their equipment and configurations accordingly, -how long- will it be until the addresses are usable on the Internet. 2026? 2031? 2051? That research could be valuable, but it can't usefully start until:
1. Move 240/4 from "reserved" to "unallocated unicast"
So maybe instead of
2. Wait 10 years
It's
2. 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
But that still starts with:
1. Move 240/4 from "reserved" to "unallocated unicast"
Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill () herrin us https://bill.herrin.us/
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 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)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Enno Rey (Nov 20)