Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Sun Nov 21 12:16:25 UTC 2021

Bill,

On 20.11.21 21:37, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:03 PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>> Was it the politics of ipv6 that
>> this didn't get resolved in the 90's when it was a lot more tractable?
> No, in the '90s we didn't have nearly the basis for looking ahead. We
> might still have invented a new way to use IP addresses that required
> a block that wasn't unicast. It was politics in the 2000's and the
> 2010's, as it is today.

That really isn't what happened.

In 2008, Vince Fuller, Dave Meyer, and I put together 
draft-fuller-240space, and we presented it to the IETF. There were 
definitely people who thought we should just try to get to v6, but what 
really stopped us was a point that Dave Thaler made: unintended impact 
on non-participating devices, and in particular CPE/consumer firewall 
gear, and at the time there were  serious concerns about some endpoint 
systems as well.  Back then it might have been possible to use the space 
as part of an SP interior, but no SP demonstrated any interest at the 
time, because it would have amounted to an additional transition.

Eliot

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20211121/bb0e4452/attachment.sig>