Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

["J. Hellenthal via NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>]

Just replying to Joe's post here to add a little more context to at least one of the problems that will certainly 
appear if this would come about.

FreeBSD operators have been using this space for quite a long time for many NAT'ing reasons including firewalls and 
other services behind them for jail routing and such.

https://dan.langille.org/2013/12/29/freebsd-jails-on-non-routable-ip-addresses/

That's just one example that I've seen repeated in multiple other ways. One of which a jail operator with about 250 
addresses out of that range that enabled his jail routed services.

Of course that can be changed but really for just this small of a influx of addresses ? Seems really wasteful to me.

-- 
 J. Hellenthal

The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.

> On Nov 20, 2021, at 23:54, Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com> wrote:
> 
>
> Jay Hennigan wrote:
> > > On 11/19/21 10:27, William Herrin wrote:
> > > Howdy,
> > > That depends on your timeline. Do you know many non-technical people
> > > still using their Pentium III computers with circa 2001 software
> > > versions? Connected to the Internet?
> >
> > There are lots of very old networked industrial machines with embedded computers operated by non-network-savvy 
> > people that are still very much in use.
> >
> > Think CNC machines in machine shops, SCADA systems, etc. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find quite a few 2001-era 
> > boxes still in service.
> In the context of re-purposed IPv4 address scopes specialized equipment will tend to be fairly limited in its 
> communication needs and unlikely to be affected.
>
> I certainly hope they are, otherwise the security implications are severe.
>
> How about we recast this as general purpose internet communicating platforms likely to have occasion to interact with 
> these re-purposed addresses are nearly certain to undergo an upgrade or more over the next decade, or how many 
> non-technical people are still using the original wrtg platform to connect them to the internet?
>
> And yes, its quite possible that even then those addresses may have some more baggage than the typical IPv4 block in 
> use today (which are hardly clean bills of health more often than not).
>
> But the sooner the effort begins the more likely the utilitarian value will be there if or when its needed.
>
> Joe