Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

[Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us>]

On 2019-07-26 10:07 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 9:21 PM Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us 
> <mailto:dougb () dougbarton us>> wrote:
> > When I was running the IANA in the early 2000's we discussed this 
> issue with many different experts, hardware company reps, etc. Not 
> only was there a software issue that was insurmountable for all 
> practical purposes (pretty much every TCP/IP stack has "Class E space 
> is not unicast" built in), in the case of basically all network 
> hardware, this limitation is also in the silicon. So even if it were 
> possible to fix the software issue, it would not be possible to fix 
> the hardware issue without replacing pretty much all the hardware.
>
> > So the decision was made to start tooting the IPv4 runout horns in 
> the hopes that folks would start taking conservation of the space 
> seriously (which happened more often than not), and accelerate the 
> adoption of IPv6. *cough*
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> That's what you wrote. Here's what I read:
>
> "We decided keep this mile of road closed because you can't drive it 
> anywhere unless the toll road operators in the next 10 miles open 
> their roads too. What's that you say? Your house is a quarter mile 
> down this road?** La la la I can't hear you. Look, just use the shiny 
> new road we built over in the next state instead. Move your house 
> there. The roads are better."
>
> ** Not every unicast use of 240/4 would require broad adoption of the 
> change. Your reasoning that it does is so absurd as to merit outright 
> mockery.
>
> > So no, there were exactly zero "IPv6 loons" involved in this 
> decision. :-)
>
> No, when I said IPv6 loonies, reasoning of this character was pretty 
> much what I was talking about.

So leaving aside how interesting I find the fact that you snipped the 
part of my comments that you did, the utter absurdity of your toll road 
analogy shows me that I will not be able to convince you of anything.

So I'll just say this ... if you think that the advice I received from 
all of the many people I spoke to (all of whom are/were a lot smarter 
than me on this topic) was wrong, and that putting the same LOE into 
IPv6 adoption that it would have taken to make Class E usable was a 
better investment because we're not running out of IPv6 any time soon, 
then you have a golden opportunity. Go forth and prove me wrong. Go 
rally support from all of the people and companies that you need in 
order to make any part of  Class E usable for any purpose (even, as you 
point it, if it's not for global unicast). If you're right, and I'm 
wrong, your income potential is essentially limitless.

Or, look at it from another perspective. If you're right, then why, in 
the last almost 15 years, has no one figured out how to do it yet? 
Including the companies whose mission is to sell us new hardware, and 
force us into contracts for software upgrades in order to keep said 
hardware on the 'net?

It's easy to sit back in the cheap seats and squawk about how "they" are 
out to get you. I'd be far more impressed if you put your money (or 
time, or effort) where your mouth is.

Doug