<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div>Just replying to Joe's post here to add a little more context to at least one of the problems that will certainly appear if this would come about.<br><br>FreeBSD operators have been using this space for quite a long time for many NAT'ing reasons including firewalls and other services behind them for jail routing and such.<div><br></div><div><a href="https://dan.langille.org/2013/12/29/freebsd-jails-on-non-routable-ip-addresses/">https://dan.langille.org/2013/12/29/freebsd-jails-on-non-routable-ip-addresses/</a></div><div><br></div><div>That's just one example that I've seen repeated in multiple other ways. One of which a jail operator with about 250 addresses out of that range that enabled his jail routed services.</div><div><br></div><div>Of course that can be changed but really for just this small of a influx of addresses ? Seems really wasteful to me.</div><div><br><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">-- </span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> J. Hellenthal</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.</span></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Nov 20, 2021, at 23:54, Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>Jay Hennigan wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>On 11/19/21 10:27, William Herrin wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Howdy,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>That depends on your timeline. Do you know many non-technical people</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>still using their Pentium III computers with circa 2001 software</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>versions? Connected to the Internet?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>There are lots of very old networked industrial machines with embedded computers operated by non-network-savvy people that are still very much in use.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Think CNC machines in machine shops, SCADA systems, etc. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find quite a few 2001-era boxes still in service.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><span>In the context of re-purposed IPv4 address scopes specialized equipment will tend to be fairly limited in its communication needs and unlikely to be affected.</span><br><span></span><br><span>I certainly hope they are, otherwise the security implications are severe.</span><br><span></span><br><span>How about we recast this as general purpose internet communicating platforms likely to have occasion to interact with these re-purposed addresses are nearly certain to undergo an upgrade or more over the next decade, or how many non-technical people are still using the original wrtg platform to connect them to the internet?</span><br><span></span><br><span>And yes, its quite possible that even then those addresses may have some more baggage than the typical IPv4 block in use today (which are hardly clean bills of health more often than not).</span><br><span></span><br><span>But the sooner the effort begins the more likely the utilitarian value will be there if or when its needed.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Joe</span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>