nanog mailing list archives
Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: Eliot Lear <lear () ofcourseimright com>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 13:16:25 +0100
Bill, On 20.11.21 21:37, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:03 PM Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> 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 required a block that wasn't unicast. It was politics in the 2000's and the 2010's, as it is today.
That really isn't what happened.In 2008, Vince Fuller, Dave Meyer, and I put together draft-fuller-240space, and we presented it to the IETF. There were definitely people who thought we should just try to get to v6, but what really stopped us was a point that Dave Thaler made: unintended impact on non-participating devices, and in particular CPE/consumer firewall gear, and at the time there were serious concerns about some endpoint systems as well. Back then it might have been possible to use the space as part of an SP interior, but no SP demonstrated any interest at the time, because it would have amounted to an additional transition.
Eliot
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Current thread:
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public, (continued)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Masataka Ohta (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Chris Adams (Nov 20)
- Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Michael Thomas (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Jim (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Michael Thomas (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Michael Thomas (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public james.cutler () consultant com (Nov 20)
- RE: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Richard Irving (Nov 21)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Eliot Lear (Nov 21)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 21)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Greg Skinner via NANOG (Nov 22)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Eliot Lear (Nov 23)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 23)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public David Conrad (Nov 23)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 23)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public David Conrad (Nov 24)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 24)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Denis Fondras (Nov 24)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Greg Skinner via NANOG (Nov 29)