Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Fri Nov 19 07:48:41 UTC 2021

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:20 PM Måns Nilsson <mansaxel at besserwisser.org> wrote:
> Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 01:46:04PM -0800 Quoting William Herrin (bill at herrin.us):
> > The detractors for this proposal and those like it make the core claim
> > that we shouldn't take the long view improving IPv4 because IPv6 is
> > going to replace it any day now. Each day that passes with the end of
> > IPv4 still not in sight demonstrates how very wrong that strategy is.
>
> Aw, come on. There is noone (except naive ones in power) who expect this
> to happen immediately.  We all knew there would be a transition
> period. The "improvement" part was CIDR. And a very good one it is at
> that -- it sort of sets the standard as to what an improvement should
> be to count. 6,25% new addresses from Net 240 is not an improvement in
> that regard, and neither would the much smaller contribution from Net
> 127 be. Both are no more than holding paper money on the deck of the
> Titanic.
>
> The essence of an IP address is that it is unique. The larger the network
> area is that recognizes it as unique, the better it is. That's why RFC
> 1918 is free and useless.  We all know this.
>
> The only viable future is to convert.  This is not group-think, it is simple math.
>
> > If there's a change we can make to a standard now which will result in
> > IPv4 being better 20 years from now, we should make it. We should hope
> > that we never need the result because IPv6 takes over the world but we
> > should make the change anyway. Because hedging our bets is what
> > responsible people do.
>
> You are proposing a deal involving paper money you have on your person
> to your fellow passengers on the Titanic; that is the essence of your
> proposed bet hedging. Having studied the market for IPv4, it is a no-
> brainer to realise the driving force behind all these schemes. Delaying
> the inevitable is just going to make some people richer, to the detriment
> of others.  I see no reason to support that.

Howdy,

I can't tell if you believe what you just wrote or are trolling me
with satire. If it's satire... good one.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/