WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Fri Nov 19 15:08:07 UTC 2021

I don’t see the difference between 6 and 7 usable addresses on all the /29s
in the world as actually making a significant impact on the usable lifespan of
IPv4.

Owen

> On Nov 17, 2021, at 19:33 , Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I am sad to see the most controversial of the proposals (127/16) first
> discussed here.
> 
> Try this instead?
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-lowest-address/
> 
> in my mind, has the most promise for making the internet better in the
> nearer term.
> 
> Could I get y'all to put aside the 127 proposal and read that over, instead?
> 
> ...
> 
> It's ok, I'll wait...
> 
> ...
> 
> There were two other proposals concerning 240/4 and 0/8 also worth
> reading for their research detail and attention to history.
> 
> The amount of work required to make 240/4 work in most places is now
> very close to zero, having been essentially completed a decade ago.
> 240/4 and 0/8 checking is not present in the SDN codes we tried, and
> we ripped the 0/8 check out of linux 3? 4? years back. Saves a few ns.
> 
> All but one iOt stack we tried worked with these, many of those stacks
> still lack, or have poor ipv6 support. esp32 anyone?
> 
> Just as ipv6 today is not globally reachable, these address spaces may
> never be globally reachable, but defining a standard for their
> potential sub-uses
> seems like a viable idea.