> 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.
Most of the consolidation of IPv4 usage by ISPs in recent years has been in the deployment of CGNs and aggressive address sharing. As far as I can tell, most consolidation of IPv4 usage within enterprises has been based on Net 10. So I am not at all clear where this economic value would be, or why the IETF should even care about it. Regards Brian On 02-Aug-21 17:59, Seth David Schoen 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 > . > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
