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

Wed Nov 24 06:11:57 UTC 2021

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:02 PM David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2021, at 10:33 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> > 1. Move it from "reserved" to "unallocated unicast" (IETF action)
>
> Or…
>
> 1. IAB or IESG requests the IANA team to delegate one of
> the 240/4 /8s to the RIRs on demand for experimental
> purposes for a fixed period of time (a year or two?).

Hi David,

I like research but what would the RIRs study? The percentage of the
2021 Internet reachable from a station assigned a 240/4 IP address?
Suppose it's 95%? Or 50%? Is there a difference? Neither one is enough
to deploy the addresses for 2021 global use.

> 5. Armed with hard data on the usability of the 240/4 /8s
> allocated, people can scream past each other much more
> authoritatively on the topic of what to do with 240/4.

Which is not particularly valuable. We already know the addresses are
dysfunctional on the 2021 Internet. There's no credible disagreement
on that point. We don't particularly need to know it more
authoritatively. What we need to know more authoritatively is: IF we
tell vendors and operators to expect those addresses to come into use
and alter their equipment and configurations accordingly, -how long-
will it be until the addresses are usable on the Internet. 2026? 2031?
2051? That research could be valuable, but it can't usefully start
until:

> 1. Move 240/4 from "reserved" to "unallocated unicast"

So maybe instead of

> 2. Wait 10 years

It's

> 2. IAB or IESG requests the IANA team to delegate one of
> the 240/4 /8s to the RIRs on demand for experimental
> purposes for a fixed period of time

But that still starts with:

> 1. Move 240/4 from "reserved" to "unallocated unicast"

Regards,
Bill Herrin

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