nanog mailing list archives
Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast
From: Dave Taht <dave.taht () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 08:37:26 -0800
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 8:25 AM Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 09:43:26AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:On 11/19/21 8:27 AM, Randy Bush wrote:these measurements would be great if there could be a full research- style paper, with methodology artifacts, and reproducible results. otherwise it disappears in the gossip stream of mailimg lists.Maybe an experimental rfc making it a rfc 1918-like subnet and implementing it on openwrt or something like that to see what happens. how many ip cameras and the like roll over and die? same for class E addresses too, I suppose. The question with anything that asks about legacy is how long the long tail actually is. Mike, not that have any position on whether this is a good idea or notI can tell you it's observable out there and if i use my home network to follow default i can tell it is working through those devices at least. I agree with Randy it would be good if someone did this, it shouldn't be too hard with ripe atlas and a provider deciding to announce something
the atlas is good stuff, I am curious (OT) if they have added a videoconferencing-like test to it?
like 240.2.3.0/24 to see if it can be reached.
I very much would like a study of 240/4. In particular, announcing 255.255/16 might pick up a lot of misconfigured routers out there. Tests of the DNS would also be useful. This test setup has been working for years now... $ host postel.taht.net postel.taht.net has address 85.90.246.167 postel.taht.net has address 255.255.255.254 # wireguard vpn presently postel.taht.net has address 0.0.0.1 # wireguard vpn postel.taht.net has IPv6 address 2a01:7e01:e001:28:f3ee:d002:0:beef # ironically the ipv6 address is down and I hadn't noticed!
That's at least a decent measurement and report, but the client side OS will still be a variable that is difficult to digest. Not sure how many people are running very old IP stacks. This is another hard to measure problem. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared () puck nether net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
-- I tried to build a better future, a few times: https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
Current thread:
- Re: FreeBSD users of 127/8, (continued)
- Re: FreeBSD users of 127/8 Måns Nilsson (Nov 22)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Michael Thomas (Nov 21)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast bzs (Nov 21)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Joe Maimon (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Dave Taht (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 Jared Mauch (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Randy Bush (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Michael Thomas (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Jared Mauch (Nov 25)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Dave Taht (Nov 25)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Joe Maimon (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast bzs (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Curran (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast William Herrin (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast David Conrad (Nov 18)
- 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 Gaurav Kansal (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Joe Provo (Nov 19)
- Message not available
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 18)