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

On 11/20/21 11:41 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote: On 11/20/21 11:01, Michael Thomas wrote: There is just as big a block of addresses with class D addresses for broadcast. Is broadcast really even a thing these days? I know tons of work went into it, but it always seemed that brute force and

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On 18-Nov-2021, at 09:10, Jerry Cloe wrote: > > > > Subject: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public > To: nanog mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>; > This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who noticed? > >

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Please make sure there’s video we can all watch when you try to take DoD’s IP addresses by force. ROFLMAO Owen > On Nov 20, 2021, at 11:20 , Gaurav Kansal wrote: > > > >> On 18-Nov-2021, at 09:10, Jerry Cloe > > wrote: >> >> >> >> Subject: Redploying most of

Unicast etc meta-observation

Reading over many of these notes my observation is that many here are good at understanding the technical points of the proposals and throwing around 224/4 this and 127/8 that. Then the discussion mostly disintegrates into anecdotes with hands waving furiously, "my anecdote is VERY important!"

Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 09:38, John Lee wrote: > Cisco and Juniper routers have had v6 functionality for over 10 years. > Lucent/Nokia, and others. Check UNL list at > https://www.iol.unh.edu/registry/usgv6 for v6 compliant routers and switches. People who work with network devices directly

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

On 11/20/21 12:37 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:03 PM Michael Thomas wrote: Was it the politics of ipv6 that this didn't get resolved in the 90's when it was a lot more tractable? No, in the '90s we didn't have nearly the basis for looking ahead. We might still have

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 19, 2021, at 10:50 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> LLA and ULA and whatever random prefix you may wish to use for loopback, >>> whether in IPv6 or even IPv4 have none of these qualities. >> And if we implement the proposal at hand, which as near as I can

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

On Nov 20, 2021, at 3:50 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > > In the early to mid 90's it was still a crap shoot of whether IP was going to > win (though it was really the only game in town for non-lan) but by when I > started at Cisco in 1998 it was the clear winner with broadband starting to >

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Owen DeLong wrote: I guess I don’t see the need/benefit for a dedicated loopback prefix in excess of one address. I’m not necessary inherently opposed to designating one (which would be all that is required for IPv6 to have one, no software updates would be necessary), but I’d need some

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

> On Nov 19, 2021, at 10:22 , John Curran wrote: > > On 18 Nov 2021, at 8:14 PM, b...@theworld.com > wrote: >> That suggests an idea: >> >> Repurpose these addresses and allow the RIRs to sell them in the IPv4 >> secondary markets with some earmark for the funds.

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

> On Nov 19, 2021, at 11:46 , John Gilmore wrote: > > Joe Maimon wrote: >> And all thats needed to be done is to drop this ridiculous .0 for >> broadcast compatibility from standards.why is this even controversial? > > Not to put words in his mouth, but that's how original BSD

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

> On Nov 19, 2021, at 12:11 , Jim wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 8:24 PM David Conrad wrote: >> > ... >> Some (not me) might argue it could (further) hamper IPv6 deployment by >> diverting limited resources. > > It may help IPv6 deployment if more V4 addresses are eventually >

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On 11/19/2021 1:27 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:22 AM Zu wrote: One anecdote (the non-technical grandma) illustrates a very real problem that would need to be addressed -- there are non-technical people (of all ages, if your concerned about ageism) which will need

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 20, 2021, at 13:15 , Matthew Walster wrote: > > > > On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 13:47, Måns Nilsson > wrote: > Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, > 2021 at 11:16:59AM + Quoting Matthew Walster

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 20, 2021, at 15:35 , Matthew Walster wrote: > > > > On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 22:35, Owen DeLong > wrote: >> On Nov 20, 2021, at 03:16 , Matthew Walster > > wrote: >> On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, 09:21 Måns Nilsson, >

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Owen DeLong wrote: Agreed. But I have every right to express my desires and displeasures with widespread plans to encourage what I perceive as misuse and that’s exactly what’s happening here. My right to attempt to discourage it by opposing proposed standards is exactly equal to your

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

On 11/20/21 11:51 AM, William Herrin wrote: If I had to guess, changing 224/4 is probably the biggest lift. The other proposals mainly involve altering configuration, removing some possibly hardcoded filters and in a few cases waiting for silicon to age out of the system. Changing 224/4 means

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

Hi, On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:01:35AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: > > On 11/20/21 10:44 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > > [] > > won out using unicast. Even if it has some niche uses, I seriously doubt > that it needs 400M addresses. If you wanted to reclaim ipv4 addresses it > seems that class D

Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying

> On Nov 20, 2021, at 00:41 , Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > Speed of router depends on degree of parallelism. > > So, for quick routing table lookup, if you provide 128bit TCAM > for IPv6 in addition to 32bit TCAM for IPv4, speed is mostly > same, though, for each entry, TCAM for IPv6 costs 4

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

Tom Beecher wrote: The biggest impediment to IPv6 adoption is that too many people invest too much time and resources in finding ways to squeeze more blood from the IPv4 stone. Reverse that. IPv6 has impediments to adoption, which is why more time and resources are being spent to keep

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Once upon a time, Masataka Ohta said: > It merely means IPv6 is not deployable with the real reason. Except that is provably wrong. A significant number of people are using IPv6 (and probably don't even know it, because it works without notice). Almost everything you do on the US cell networks

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

On 11/20/21 11:01, Michael Thomas wrote: There is just as big a block of addresses with class D addresses for broadcast. Is broadcast really even a thing these days? I know tons of work went into it, but it always seemed that brute force and ignorance won out using unicast. Even if it has

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

It appears that Michael Thomas said: >There is just as big a block of addresses with class D addresses for >broadcast. Is broadcast really even a thing these days? It's multicast and no, but it hardly matters. It's the same problem, if you wanted to turn it into unicast space you'd need a

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 09:15:24PM + Quoting Matthew Walster (matt...@walster.org): > > Why should we burden ourselves with this cumbersome and painful, useless > > layer of abstraction that is "port forwarding", when the choice of >

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

Subject: Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:51:24AM -0800 Quoting William Herrin (b...@herrin.us): > Multicast is not the same as broadcast and yes, it's a thing. Mainly > it's a thing confined to the local broadcast domain but

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

Jay Hennigan wrote: On 11/19/21 10:27, William Herrin wrote: Howdy, That depends on your timeline. Do you know many non-technical people still using their Pentium III computers with circa 2001 software versions? Connected to the Internet? There are lots of very old networked industrial

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

On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 1:02 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > On 11/20/21 10:44 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > that it needs 400M addresses. If you wanted to reclaim ipv4 addresses it > seems that class D and class E would be a much better target than loopback. > Mike, not that I have any stake in this

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 13:47, Måns Nilsson wrote: > Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, > 2021 at 11:16:59AM + Quoting Matthew Walster (matt...@walster.org): > > 3. IPv6 "port forwarding" isn't really an easy thing -- people are not > used > > to each

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

On 11/20/21 10:44 AM, Chris Adams wrote: [] There is just as big a block of addresses with class D addresses for broadcast. Is broadcast really even a thing these days? I know tons of work went into it, but it always seemed that brute force and ignorance won out using unicast. Even if it

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

On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:02 AM Michael Thomas wrote: > Even if it has some niche uses, I seriously doubt > that it needs 400M addresses. If you wanted to reclaim ipv4 addresses it > seems that class D and class E would be a much better target than loopback. Hi Mike, If you follow the links

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

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 22:14, Måns Nilsson wrote: > Subject: Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast > public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:51:24AM -0800 Quoting William Herrin ( > b...@herrin.us): > All the heavy lifting in video production via IP is done over >

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

That fine. XP supports IPv6 and apart from the DNS needing a IPv4 recursive server it works fine. -- Mark Andrews > On 21 Nov 2021, at 11:23, ML wrote: > >  > >> On 11/19/2021 1:27 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:22 AM Zu wrote: >>> One anecdote (the

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Owen DeLong wrote: On Nov 20, 2021, at 19:11 , Joe Maimon wrote: Owen DeLong wrote: I guess I don’t see the need/benefit for a dedicated loopback prefix in excess of one address. I’m not necessary inherently opposed to designating one (which would be all that is required for IPv6 to

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On 21 Nov 2021, at 00.00, Joe Maimon wrote: > > There is a clear difference of opinion on this, that there stands a very good > chance that prompt implementation now may prove to provide significant > benefit in the future, should IPv6 continue to lag, which you cannot > guarantee it wont.

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Max Harmony via NANOG wrote: On 21 Nov 2021, at 00.00, Joe Maimon wrote: There is a clear difference of opinion on this, that there stands a very good chance that prompt implementation now may prove to provide significant benefit in the future, should IPv6 continue to lag, which you

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

On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:03 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > Was it the politics of ipv6 that > this didn't get resolved in the 90's when it was a lot more tractable? No, in the '90s we didn't have nearly the basis for looking ahead. We might still have invented a new way to use IP addresses that

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

> On 20-Nov-2021, at 02:21, g...@toad.com wrote: > > David Conrad wrote: >> Doesn't this presume the redeployed addresses would be allocated >> via a market rather than via the RIRs? >> >> If so, who would receive the money? > > You ask great questions. > > The community can and should do

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 22:35, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Nov 20, 2021, at 03:16 , Matthew Walster wrote: > On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, 09:21 Måns Nilsson, > wrote: > >> Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov >> 20, 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta ( >>

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On 11/19/21 10:27, William Herrin wrote: Howdy, That depends on your timeline. Do you know many non-technical people still using their Pentium III computers with circa 2001 software versions? Connected to the Internet? There are lots of very old networked industrial machines with embedded

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 20, 2021, at 03:16 , Matthew Walster wrote: > > > > On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, 09:21 Måns Nilsson, > wrote: > Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, > 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta >

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: (snips for brevity and reply relevancy) This is a common fallacy… The real concept here isn’t “universal reachability”, but universal transparent addressing. Policy then decides about reachability. Think stateful firewall without NAT. No, NAT is not a

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 20, 2021, at 19:11 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> I guess I don’t see the need/benefit for a dedicated loopback prefix in >> excess of one address. I’m not necessary inherently opposed to designating >> one (which would be all that is required for IPv6 to

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta (mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp): > > We cope, > > because a lot of technical debt is amassed in corporate and ISP / > > access provider networks that won't change. > >

Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying

Speed of router depends on degree of parallelism. So, for quick routing table lookup, if you provide 128bit TCAM for IPv6 in addition to 32bit TCAM for IPv4, speed is mostly same, though, for each entry, TCAM for IPv6 costs 4 times more and consumes 4 times more power than that for IPv4.

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:16:59AM + Quoting Matthew Walster (matt...@walster.org): > The "real" reason we have IPv4 around is that it works. It works in our present context, good enough that the pain of moving looks bad to many

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

During the nation-wide lockdown of 2020, around the world, I took up live-streaming my DJ sets online, since I couldn't play live. For those that haven't seen them, you're welcome to my Youtube channel to catch them: https://yt.djmt.africa/watch Anyway, what I wanted to say is that I was

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 09:04:38PM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta (mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp): > It merely means IPv6 is not deployable with the real reason. IPv6 is deployable. It is deployed. You are fundamentally in error. Any

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Mans Nilsson wrote: Supplying context you omit: >>> No, it is the real reason that we still have v4 around. >> Even more than 25 years after IPv6 became a proposed standard? It merely means IPv6 is not deployable with the real reason. > IPv6 is deployable. It is deployed. If you mean ATM

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, 09:21 Måns Nilsson, wrote: > Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, > 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta ( > mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp): > > > > We cope, > > > because a lot of technical debt is amassed in corporate and

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Mans Nilsson wrote: We cope, because a lot of technical debt is amassed in corporate and ISP / access provider networks that won't change. Sounds like abstract nonsense. No, it is the real reason that we still have v4 around. Even more than 25 years after IPv6 became a proposed standard?