nanog mailing list archives
Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)
From: John Gilmore <gnu () toad com>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 01:16:22 -0800
John Levine <johnl () iecc com> wrote:
FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea. To be useful it would require that every host on the Internet update its network stack, which would take on the order of a decade...
Those network stacks were updated for 240/4 in 2008-2009 -- a decade ago. See the Implementation Status section of our draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/ Major networks are already squatting on the space internally, because they tried it and it works. We have running code. The future is now. We are ready to update the standards. The only major OS that doesn't support 240/4 is Microsoft Windows -- and it comes with regular online updates. So if IETF made the decision to make it unicast space, most MS OS users could be updated within less than a year.
It's basically the same amount of work as getting everything to work on IPv6.
If that was true, we'd be living in the IPv6 heaven now. It doesn't take any OS upgrades for "getting everything to work on IPv6". All the OS's and routers have supported IPv6 for more than a decade. Whatever the IPv6 transition might require, it isn't comparable to the small effort needed to upgrade a few laggard OS's to support 240/4 and to do some de-bogonization in the global Internet, akin to what CloudFlare did for 1.1.1.1. John
Current thread:
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock), (continued)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Greg Skinner via NANOG (Mar 12)
- Re: V6 still not supported John Gilmore (Mar 16)
- Re: V6 still not supported Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 16)
- Re: V6 still not supported james.cutler () consultant com (Mar 16)
- Re: V6 still not supported David Bass (Mar 16)
- Re: V6 still not supported Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 16)
- Re: V6 still not supported John Gilmore (Mar 16)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Tom Beecher (Mar 16)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Greg Skinner via NANOG (Mar 16)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Seth David Schoen (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) John Gilmore (Mar 09)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Tom Beecher (Mar 09)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Tim Howe (Mar 09)
- V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) David Conrad (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Joe Greco (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Saku Ytti (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Masataka Ohta (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Matthew Walster (Mar 10)
- Re udp port overload on ipv4 (was Re: V6 still not supported) Dave Taht (Mar 10)
- Re: Re udp port overload on ipv4 (was Re: V6 still not supported) William Herrin (Mar 10)
- Re: Re udp port overload on ipv4 (was Re: V6 still not supported) Matthew Walster (Mar 10)