Seth, Do I understand correctly, that you are proposing that all hosts, routers, firewalls, middle boxes, etc. on the Internet, be updated in order to get a single extra IP address per subnet? Plus then having to deal with the complexities of mixed implementations for a very long transition period.
To me this fails the cost benefit analysis. Bob > On Aug 1, 2021, at 10:59 PM, Seth David Schoen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > John Gilmore, Dave Taht and I have proposed a recent Internet-Draft that > relates to the Internet Area. We hope you'll read it and discuss it: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-lowest-address/ > > With ever-increasing pressure to conserve IP address space on the > Internet, it makes sense to consider where relatively minor changes > can be made to fielded practice to improve numbering efficiency. One > such change, proposed by this document, is to increase the number of > unicast addresses in each existing subnet, by redefining the use of > the lowest-numbered (zeroth) host address in each IPv4 subnet as an > ordinary unicast host identifier, instead of as a duplicate segment- > directed broadcast address. > > Our IPv4 Unicast Extensions team is working on several related > proposals for improving address space utilization, of which this is > the first. We are also editing I-Ds for each of the other proposals > and will upload them to the datatracker when they're ready. Each > proposal changes the status of some particular unused IPv4 addresses > in order to make more address space available, and each has involved > experimentation with real-world operating systems to explore the ease > with which the proposed change can be made and learn about its > consequences. > > These proposals would, if adopted and deployed, produce another tens > to hundreds of millions of IPv4 addresses usable for unicast traffic. > This can be accomplished by making quite small, easy to make, easy to > test, incremental changes in popular TCP/IP implementations. (The Lowest > Address patch for Linux is less than 10 lines long, and the BSD patch is > similar. They interoperate with each other and are already addressable > by unpatched implementations when distant from the local subnet.) As we > will describe in more detail in future posts, we expect these changes will > create enormous economic value, and they are not intended as an attack on > the IPv6 transition. > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
