Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> A traceroute from my machine to 240.1.2.3 goes through six routers at my
> ISP before stopping (probably at the first default-route-free router).

My experience is the opposite. My home edge router (dd-wrt) will pass it,
but nothing in my ISP's network will. $DayJob networks aren't worth
checking, as I know I have 224/3 bogonized.

I'd be curious to see the data you guys have collected on what it has been
confirmed to work on if that's available somewhere. ( More for curiosity's
sake ; I still think that making 224/3 universally available isn't worth
the effort it would take to make it happen. )

On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 9:42 PM John Gilmore <gnu () toad com> wrote:

> Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:
> > > */writing/* and */deploying/* the code that will allow the use of
> 240/4 the
> > > way you expect
> >
> > While Mr. Chen may have considered that, he has repeatedly hand waved
> that
> > it's 'not that big a deal.', so I don't think he adequately grasps the
> > scale of that challenge.
>
> From multiple years of patching and testing, the IPv4 Unicast Extensions
> Project knows that 240/4 ALREADY WORKS in a large fraction of the
> Internet.  Including all the Linux servers and desktops, all the Android
> phones and tablets, all the MacOS machines, all the iOS phones, many of
> the home wifi gateways.  All the Ethernet switches.  And some less
> popular stuff like routers from Cisco, Juniper, and OpenWRT.  Most of
> these started working A DECADE AGO.  If others grasp the scale of the
> challenge better than we do, I'm happy to learn from them.
>
> A traceroute from my machine to 240.1.2.3 goes through six routers at my
> ISP before stopping (probably at the first default-route-free router).
>
> Today Google is documenting to its cloud customers that they should use
> 240/4 for internal networks.  (Read draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240 for
> the citation.)  We have received inquiries from two other huge Internet
> companies, which are investigating or already using 240/4 as private
> IPv4 address space.
>
> In short, we are actually making it work, and writing a spec for what
> already works.  Our detractors are arguing: not that it doesn't work,
> but that we should instead seek to accomplish somebody else's goals.
>
>         John
>
> PS: Mr. Abraham Chen's effort is not related to ours.  Our drafts are
> agnostic about what 240/4 should be used for after we enable it as
> ordinary unicast.  His EzIP overlay network effort is one that I don't
> fully understand.  What I do understand is that since his effort uses
> 240/4 addresses as the outer addresses in IPv4 packets, it couldn't work
> without reaching our goal first: allowing any site on the Internet to
> send unicast packets to or from 240.0.0.1 and having them arrive.