One thing is for certain… If folks had put 0.10 as much effort into deploying IPv6 as has been put into arguing about whether or not ~17 /8s worth of IPv4 makes a meaningful difference to the internet as a whole, IPv4 would long since have become irrelevant as it must eventually be.
Owen > On Mar 8, 2022, at 18:35, Seth David Schoen <[email protected]> wrote: > > John R. Levine writes: > >> This still doesn't mean that screwing around with 240/4 or, an even worse >> 127/8 minus 127/24, is a good idea. > > I hope you'll be slightly mollified to learn that it's actually 127/8 > minus 127/16. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127/ > > That's the most challenging one, but we've still seen something of a > lack of people getting in touch to point out concrete problems. > > One person did get in touch to describe an unofficial use of, apparently, > all of 127/8 as private address space in a VPN product. If people let > us know about more, we can investigate workarounds or possible changes > to our proposals. > > We previously thought that the reference NTP implementation was using > all of 127/8 to identify hardware clock drivers. But it turns out it > doesn't actually connect to these. > > If anyone reading this knows of something that uses a loopback address > outside of 127/16 for an application, or something that can't be updated > and would be harmed if the rest of the network stopped treating this as > loopback, we'd be glad to hear about it.
