nanog mailing list archives
Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 07:08:07 -0800
I don’t see the difference between 6 and 7 usable addresses on all the /29s in the world as actually making a significant impact on the usable lifespan of IPv4. Owen
On Nov 17, 2021, at 19:33 , Dave Taht <dave.taht () gmail com> wrote: I am sad to see the most controversial of the proposals (127/16) first discussed here. Try this instead? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-lowest-address/ in my mind, has the most promise for making the internet better in the nearer term. Could I get y'all to put aside the 127 proposal and read that over, instead? ... It's ok, I'll wait... ... There were two other proposals concerning 240/4 and 0/8 also worth reading for their research detail and attention to history. The amount of work required to make 240/4 work in most places is now very close to zero, having been essentially completed a decade ago. 240/4 and 0/8 checking is not present in the SDN codes we tried, and we ripped the 0/8 check out of linux 3? 4? years back. Saves a few ns. All but one iOt stack we tried worked with these, many of those stacks still lack, or have poor ipv6 support. esp32 anyone? Just as ipv6 today is not globally reachable, these address spaces may never be globally reachable, but defining a standard for their potential sub-uses seems like a viable idea.
Current thread:
- Re: multihoming, (continued)
- Re: multihoming Christopher Morrow (Nov 24)
- Re: multihoming Bjørn Mork (Nov 25)
- Re: multihoming Michael Thomas (Nov 25)
- Re: multihoming Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 27)
- Re: multihoming Masataka Ohta via NANOG (Nov 24)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 21)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Eliot Lear (Nov 21)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Lincoln Dale (Nov 22)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Dave Taht (Nov 18)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 18)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Message not available
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Mark Andrews (Nov 17)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 17)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 19)