nanog mailing list archives
Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 18:06:00 -0800
Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
On Nov 18, 2021, at 5:15 PM, John Gilmore <gnu () toad com> wrote: Keeping the price of IPv4 addresses reasonable means that dual-stack servers can continue to be deployed at reasonable cost, so that it doesn't matter whether clients have IPv6 or IPv4. Any company that put its services on IPv6-only sites today would be cutting off 65% of their potential customers. Even if v6 had 90% of the market, why would a company want 10% of its prospects to be unable to reach its service?
I find myself thinking about Reliance JIO, an Indian company. Iirc, their IPv4 and IPv6 statistics are in the slide deck they presented to the IETF a year or two back, and they came to me/us a little later wanting somehow expand the IPv4 address pool. In short, most of their services are IPv6 only. The only thing they want IPv4 addresses for is their enterprise customers, who want an IPv4 option wherever IPv6 is an option - so they don’t have to select IPv6. That’s all we’ll and good if the IPv4 addresses exist and work globally. Someone (was it you?) noted earlier in the thread that it might be acceptable to provide IPv4 address space that only worked in certain places. I find myself thinking about the arguments for a global DNS root. What a regional IPv4 connectivity limit creates is a network that doesn’t work everywhere, meaning that the government of <> will be incented to deploy that address space locally within their country and provide a national NAT firewall to somehow protect their citizens - because of course the bad guys are always somewhere else. Kind of like the US wants to regulate encryption because nobody outside the US uses it or whatever. WHATEVER! I tend to think that if we can somehow bless a prefix and make be global unicast address space, it needs to become Global Unicast Address Space. This is becoming a rant, so I’ll stop…
Current thread:
- Re: Class E addresses? 240/4 history, (continued)
- Re: Class E addresses? 240/4 history John Gilmore (Nov 22)
- Re: Class E addresses? 240/4 history Eliot Lear (Nov 22)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Måns Nilsson (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Matthew Walster (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public John Levine (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Enno Rey (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public John Gilmore (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Måns Nilsson (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Fred Baker (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public John Kristoff (Nov 18)