nanog mailing list archives
Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 10:51:33 +0000
John Levine wrote on 18/11/2021 03:03:
The amount of work to change every computer in the world running TCP/IP and every IP application to treat 240/4 as unicast (or to treat some of 127/8) is not significantly less than the work to get them to support IPv6. So it would roughly double the work, for a 2% increase in the address space, or for 127/8 less than 1%. The code for IPv6 is already written, after all. Also, while the world has run out of free IPv4 address space, there is plenty of IPv4 if you are willing to pay for it. A 2% increase in v4 addresses would not change that.
putting more numbers on the table, the pre-exhaustion burn rate of unallocated ipv4 address space was around 13 x /8 a year, i.e. a /8 every four weeks.
The ask is to update every ip stack in the world (including validation, equipment retirement, reconfiguration, etc) and the gain is 4 weeks of extra ip address space in terms of estimated consumption.
Nick
Current thread:
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public, (continued)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 17)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public John Levine (Nov 17)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 17)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Mark Andrews (Nov 17)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 18)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public John R. Levine (Nov 18)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 18)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Justin Streiner (Nov 18)
- 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)