Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 12:15 , Naslund, Steve <SNaslund () medline com> wrote:
>
> I think the Class E block has been covered before.  There were two reasons to not re-allocate it.
>  
> 1.      A lot of existing code base does not know how to handle those addresses and may refuse to route them or will 
> otherwise mishandle them.
> 2.      It was decided that squeezing every bit of space out of the v4 allocations only served to delay the desired 
> v6 deployment.


Close, but there is a subtle error…

        2.      It was decided that the effort to modify each and every IP stack in order to facilitate use of this 
relatively small block (16 /8s being evaluated against a global
                run rate at the time of roughly 2.5 /8s per month, mostly to RIPE and APNIC) vs. putting that same 
effort into modifying each and every IP stack to support
                IPv6 was an equation of very small benefit for slightly smaller cost. (Less than 8 additional months of 
IPv4 free pool vs. hopefully making IPv6 deployable
                before IPv4 ran out).

Owen

>  
> This is my recollection and might be flawed.
>  
> Steven Naslund
> Chicago IL
>  
> > Whatever happened to the entire class E block? I know it's reserved for future use, but sounds like that future is 
> > now given that we've exhausted all existing >allocations.