nanog mailing list archives
Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 10:29:23 +0200
On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 at 18:19, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com> wrote:
3) " ... Changes to hardware and software to make use of 240/4 as ordinary unicast IP addresses can and should proceed in parallel to such debate. ": Agreed. Since through the EzIP Project, we have identified that the hardware does not need change, and the software modification is minimal, we should proceed to discuss what is the best application for the 240/4 netblock, after is re-classified as an ordinary unicast address pool.
It would surprise me greatly if there isn't hardware in the field which physically cannot be retrofitted for 240/4, as we have a very diverse set of hardware which very liberally makes assumptions of the environment it will be in, to both reduce cost and to improve PPS. These assumptions cause issues already in the environment they are in, because engineers aren't always correct. It is crucial to understand not all lookups are equal, and determinism isn't perfect, the devices are not complex, but they are more complex than that. And of course a lot more which by software do not, and will not, as they've stopped receiving software updates. The marginal increase in cost and effort in any of these cases between CPR and IPv6 is trivial. Any narrative to prolong dual-stack with the argument 'it is just SW update' is broken. Only reason we are not 100% IPv6 today, is because we failed to foresee IPv6 won't take off, we all kind of assumed it will of course happen organically in due time. I don't think anyone really believed in 2002 that in 2022 we are still IPv4 and IPv6 is after thought. And now we should understand, the organic market-driven move to IPv6 may not ever happen, and are we going to accept all this cost involved maintaining dual-stack or do we want to reduce CAPEX and OPEX and have specific plans to return to single-stack world? What if many/most large CDN, cloud, tier1 would commonly announce a plan to drop all IPv4 at their edge 20 years from now? How would that change our work? What would we stop doing and what would we start doing? -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock, (continued)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Mar 12)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Joe Maimon (Mar 13)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock William Herrin (Mar 13)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Christopher Morrow (Mar 13)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Joe Maimon (Mar 13)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock William Herrin (Mar 13)
- Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Christopher Morrow (Mar 13)
- Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 11)
- Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock William Herrin (Mar 11)
- Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 12)
- Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Saku Ytti (Mar 13)
- Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Joe Maimon (Mar 13)
- Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock John Levine (Mar 13)
- Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Randy Bush (Mar 13)
- Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock bzs (Mar 13)
- Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Niels Bakker (Mar 13)
- Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock bzs (Mar 14)
- Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Sylvain Baya (Mar 15)
- Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 15)
- Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Mark Andrews (Mar 15)
- Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 16)