Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

[Justin Streiner <streinerj () gmail com>]

The proposals I've seen all seem to deliver minimal benefit for the massive
lift (technical, administrative, political, etc) involved to keep IPv4
alive a little longer.

Makes about as much sense as trying to destabilize US currency by
counterfeiting pennies.

Thank you
jms



On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:39 PM Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com> wrote:

> John R. Levine wrote:
> > > The only effort involved on the IETF's jurisdiction was to stop
> > > squatting on 240/4 and perhaps maybe some other small pieces of IPv4
> > > that could possibly be better used elsewhere by others who may choose
> > > to do so.
> >
> > The IETF is not the Network Police, and all IETF standards are
> > entirely voluntary.
>
> And that is exactly why they said that even though they think it might
> possibly entail similar effort to deployment of IPv6 and that IPv6 is
> supposed to obsolete IPv4 before any such effort can be realized, they
> would be amenable to reclassifying 240/4 as anything other than
> reserved, removing that barrier from those whom may voluntarily decide
> to follow that updated standard, should they find the time to squeeze in
> another project the same size and effort of IPv6 into their spare time.
>
> Seems the IETF does indeed think it is the network police. And that they
> get to decide winners and losers.
> > Nothing is keeping you from persuading people to change their software
> > to treat class E addresses as routable other than the detail that the
> > idea is silly.
> >
> > R's,
> > John
>
> And indeed, they have done so. Now who looks silly?
>
> Joe