nanog mailing list archives
Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 17:08:43 -0800
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:36 PM David Conrad <drc () virtualized org> wrote:
I like research but what would the RIRs study? The percentage of theLots of people said similar things when 1.0.0.0/8 was allocated to APNIC and they said similar things when 1.1.1.0/24 was stood up as an experiment by Cloudflare and APNIC, yet 1.1.1.1 seems to be pretty popular.
Hi David, I don't recall there being any equipment or software compatibility concerns with 1.0.0.0/8. If you do, feel free to refresh my memory. As I recall it, there were concerns with prior local use and potential trash traffic. It seemed likely those concerns could be addressed with experiments, and the experiments in fact addressed them. The prior local use worry reared its head again with 240/4 but given the prior experience with 1.0.0.0/8 I don't personally believe we need to re-run that experiment just because the numbers are part of a different block.
Seems to me that a number of folks on this list and during this discussion would disagree with a blanket assertion that 240/4 is “dysfunctional on the 2021 Internet” - some of them even wrote a draft discussing the possibility.
Line them up. Show of hands. Who really thinks that if we assign 240.0.0.1 to a customer tomorrow without waiting for anyone to clean up their software and hardware, you won't get enough complaints about things not working that you have to take it back and assign a different address instead?
1. Move 240/4 from "reserved" to "unallocated unicast" OK, but this seems like a quibble. The status for 240/4 is “ RESERVED: designated by the IETF for specific non-global-unicast purposes as noted.” The “as noted” part is “Future Use”.
It's not a quibble. Some vendors take the current status to mean "treat it like unicast until we're told otherwise." Others take the status to mean, "packets with these addresses are bogons without a defined routing behavior until we're told otherwise." The result is incompatible behavior between vendors. Changing that direction to "treat it like unicast" without ambiguity is not a quibble. 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 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)
- 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)