[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: nanog
Subject: Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: Greg Skinner via NANOG <nanog () nanog ! org>
Date: 2021-11-29 18:47:14
Message-ID: FEDBF677-BC75-47F3-A92D-2611F43283BA () icloud ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
> On Nov 24, 2021, at 5:08 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:36 PM David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
> > > I like research but what would the RIRs study? The percentage of the
> >
> > Lots of people said similar things when 1.0.0.0/8 was allocated to APNIC
> > and they said similar things when 1.1.1.0/24 was stood up as an
> > experiment by Cloudflare and APNIC, yet 1.1.1.1 seems to be pretty popular.
>
> Hi David,
>
> I don't recall there being any equipment or software compatibility
> concerns with 1.0.0.0/8. If you do, feel free to refresh my memory. As
> I recall it, there were concerns with prior local use and potential
> trash traffic. It seemed likely those concerns could be addressed with
> experiments, and the experiments in fact addressed them.
>
> The prior local use worry reared its head again with 240/4 but given
> the prior experience with 1.0.0.0/8 I don't personally believe we need
> to re-run that experiment just because the numbers are part of a
> different block.
>
>
> > Seems to me that a number of folks on this list and during this
> > discussion would disagree with a blanket assertion that 240/4
> > is "dysfunctional on the 2021 Internet" - some of them even
> > wrote a draft discussing the possibility.
>
> Line them up. Show of hands. Who really thinks that if we assign
> 240.0.0.1 to a customer tomorrow without waiting for anyone to clean
> up their software and hardware, you won't get enough complaints about
> things not working that you have to take it back and assign a
> different address instead?
>
>
> > 1. Move 240/4 from "reserved" to "unallocated unicast"
> >
> > OK, but this seems like a quibble. The status for 240/4 is "
> > RESERVED: designated by the IETF for specific non-global-unicast
> > purposes as noted." The "as noted" part is "Future Use".
>
> It's not a quibble. Some vendors take the current status to mean
> "treat it like unicast until we're told otherwise." Others take the
> status to mean, "packets with these addresses are bogons without a
> defined routing behavior until we're told otherwise." The result is
> incompatible behavior between vendors. Changing that direction to
> "treat it like unicast" without ambiguity is not a quibble.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
> --
> William Herrin
> bill@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
For what it's worth, I've been tracking this issue on other netops mailing lists. \
There is a recent post on the LACNOG list from Leandro Bertholdo \
<https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/2021-November/008895.html> referencing \
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space/ \
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space/>, a \
draft proposing another way to make additional IPv4 address space available. I \
haven't had time to read the draft closely, but I noticed that it involves the use of \
240/4. Subsequent googling about the draft turned up a presentation \
<https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RegionalAreaNetworkArchitecture.pdf> \
describing how the techniques described could be deployed. I noticed that the \
presentation made reference to OpenWRT, so perhaps the authors are aware of the work \
that the authors of the IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project have done in that area.
The adaptive-ipv4 draft will expire sometime next month, so anyone interested in \
seeing it move forward should contact the authors.
—gregbo
[Attachment #3 (unknown)]
<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; \
charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; \
line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote \
type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 24, 2021, at 5:08 PM, William Herrin <<a \
href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" class="">bill@herrin.us</a>> wrote:</div><br \
class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at \
4:36 PM David Conrad <<a href="mailto:drc@virtualized.org" \
class="">drc@virtualized.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" \
class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">I like research but what would the RIRs \
study? The percentage of the<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Lots of people \
said similar things when 1.0.0.0/8 was allocated to APNIC<br class="">and they said \
similar things when 1.1.1.0/24 was stood up as an<br class="">experiment by \
Cloudflare and APNIC, yet 1.1.1.1 seems to be pretty popular.<br \
class=""></blockquote><br class="">Hi David,<br class=""><br class="">I don't recall \
there being any equipment or software compatibility<br class="">concerns with \
1.0.0.0/8. If you do, feel free to refresh my memory. As<br class="">I recall it, \
there were concerns with prior local use and potential<br class="">trash traffic. It \
seemed likely those concerns could be addressed with<br class="">experiments, and the \
experiments in fact addressed them.<br class=""><br class="">The prior local use \
worry reared its head again with 240/4 but given<br class="">the prior experience \
with 1.0.0.0/8 I don't personally believe we need<br class="">to re-run that \
experiment just because the numbers are part of a<br class="">different block.<br \
class=""><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Seems to me that \
a number of folks on this list and during this<br class="">discussion would disagree \
with a blanket assertion that 240/4<br class="">is "dysfunctional on the 2021 \
Internet" - some of them even<br class="">wrote a draft discussing the \
possibility.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Line them up. Show of hands. Who \
really thinks that if we assign<br class="">240.0.0.1 to a customer tomorrow without \
waiting for anyone to clean<br class="">up their software and hardware, you won't get \
enough complaints about<br class="">things not working that you have to take it back \
and assign a<br class="">different address instead?<br class=""><br class=""><br \
class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">1. Move 240/4 from "reserved" to \
"unallocated unicast"<br class=""><br class="">OK, but this seems like a quibble. \
The status for 240/4 is "<br class="">RESERVED: designated by the IETF for \
specific non-global-unicast<br class="">purposes as noted." The "as noted" part \
is "Future Use".<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">It's not a quibble. Some \
vendors take the current status to mean<br class="">"treat it like unicast until \
we're told otherwise." Others take the<br class="">status to mean, "packets with \
these addresses are bogons without a<br class="">defined routing behavior until we're \
told otherwise." The result is<br class="">incompatible behavior between vendors. \
Changing that direction to<br class="">"treat it like unicast" without ambiguity is \
not a quibble.<br class=""><br class="">Regards,<br class="">Bill Herrin<br \
class=""><br class="">--<br class="">William Herrin<br class=""><a \
href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" class="">bill@herrin.us</a><br \
class="">https://bill.herrin.us/<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br \
class=""><div class="">For what it's worth, I've been tracking this issue on other \
netops mailing lists. There is <a \
href="https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/2021-November/008895.html" class="">a \
recent post on the LACNOG list from Leandro Bertholdo</a> referencing <a \
href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space/" \
class="">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space/</a>, \
a draft proposing another way to make additional IPv4 address space available. \
I haven't had time to read the draft closely, but I noticed that it involves \
the use of 240/4. Subsequent googling about the draft turned up a <a \
href="https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RegionalAreaNetworkArchitecture.pdf" \
class="">presentation</a> describing how the techniques described could be \
deployed. I noticed that the presentation made reference to OpenWRT, so perhaps \
the authors are aware of the work that the authors of the IPv4 Unicast Extensions \
Project have done in that area.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div \
class="">The adaptive-ipv4 draft will expire sometime next month, so anyone \
interested in seeing it move forward should contact the authors.</div><div \
class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">—gregbo</div><br class=""></body></html>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic