Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Thu Nov 18 20:57:24 UTC 2021

Fred Baker wrote:
> I have read through this thread, and you'll pardon me if it sounds like yet another rehash on yet another list. You might take a look at https://packetlife.net/blog/2010/oct/14/ipv4-exhaustion-what-about-class-e-addresses/, which responds to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wilson-class-e. I'm not sure what has changed in the past lotsa years other than which prefix people want to make essentially the same arguments about.

What has changed is that the intervening years have demonstrated that 
the proponents were right and the detractors were wrong. Very much so.

>   My observation has been that people don't want to extend the life of IPv4 per se; people want to keep using it for another very short time interval and then blame someone else for the fact that the 32 bit integers are a finite set.
>
>
>
> If you don't think that's a true statement, I'd be very interested to hear what you think might be true.
>
On this thread alone very thoughtful and knowledgeable sounding folk 
have made it quite clear that the efforts involved are a lot less and 
the potential benefits a lot more than the naysayers mantra.

Its time to update some assumptions.

Joe