nanog mailing list archives
Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 09:30:38 -0500
Nick Hilliard wrote:
John Gilmore wrote on 19/11/2021 01:54:Lowest address is in the most recent Linux and FreeBSD kernels, but not yet in any OS distros.lowest addresses will not be viable until widely supported on router (including CPE) platforms. This is hard to test in the wild - ripe atlas will only test the transit path rather than the local connection. I.e. it's not clear that what you're measuring here is a valid way of working out whether a lowest address is generally going to work, because .0 has been mostly accepted in the transit path since the 1990s (bit alarming to see that it's still not universal).The other risk with the lowest address proposal is that it will break network connectivity transitivity with no fallback or detection mechanism. I.e. consider three hosts on a broadcast domain: A, B and C. A uses the lowest address, B accepts a lowest address, but C does not. Then A can talk to B, B can talk to C, but C cannot talk to A. This does not seem to be addressed in the draft.Nick
Its very viable, since its a local support issue only. Your ISP can advise you that they will support you using the lowest number and you may then use it if you can....all you may need is a single patched/upgraded router or firewall to get your additional static IP online.
The rest of the internet has no bearing on it. Joe
Current thread:
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public, (continued)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public David Conrad (Nov 18)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Jim (Nov 18)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Nick Hilliard (Nov 18)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Steven Bakker (Nov 18)
- Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Nick Hilliard (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Randy Bush (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast David Conrad (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Nick Hilliard (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Joe Maimon (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Nick Hilliard (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Joe Maimon (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Zu (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast William Herrin (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast ML (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Mark Andrews (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Jay Hennigan (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Joe Maimon (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast J. Hellenthal via NANOG (Nov 21)
- FreeBSD users of 127/8 John Gilmore (Nov 22)