 | Virus-free.www.avast.com |
Abe (2024-01-11 23:40)
There really is no reason for 240/4 to remain "reserved". I share Dave's views, I would like to see 240/4 reclassified as unicast space and 2 x /8s delegated to each RIR with the /8s for AFRINIC to be held until their issues have been resolved.
Reclassifying this space, would add 10+ years onto the free pool for each RIR. Looking at the APNIC free pool, I would estimate there is about 1/6th of a /8 pool available for delegation, another 1/6th reserved. Reclassification would see available pool volumes return to pre-2010 levels.
In the IETF draft that was co-authored by Dave as part of the IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project, a very strong case was presented to convert this space.
Regards,Christopher Hawker
On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 20:40, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 11:06 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
>>
>> There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain
>> assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled with
>> a header that defines ..
>
>
> Of course correct. It really depends on the vendor / software / versions in an environment. A lot of vendors removed that years ago, because frankly a lot of large networks have been using 240/4 as pseudo RFC1918 for years. Others have worked with smaller vendors and open source projects to do the same.
>
> It's consistently a topic in the debates about 240/4 reclassification.
There's debates still? I gave up. After making 240/4 and 0/8 work
across all of linux and BSD and all the daemons besides bird (which
refused the patch , I took so much flack that I decided I would just
work on other things. So much of that flack was BS - like if you kill
the checks in the OS the world will end - that didn't happen. Linux
has had these two address ranges just work for over 5 years now.
240/4 is intensely routable and actually used in routers along hops
inside multiple networks today, but less so as a destination.
I would really like, one day, to see it move from reserved to unicast
status, officially. I would have loved it if 0/8 was used by a space
RIR, behind CGNAT, for starters, but with a plan towards making it
routable. I am not holding my breath.
The principal accomplishment of the whole unicast extensions project
was to save a nanosecond across all the servers in the world on every
packet by killing the useless 0/8 check. That patch paid for itself
the first weekend after that linux kernel deployed. It is the
simplest, most elegant, and most controversial patch I have ever
written.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20430096
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:45 AM Michael Butler <imb@protected-networks.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/10/24 10:12, Tom Beecher wrote:
>> > Karim-
>> >
>> > Please be cautious about this advice, and understand the full context.
>> >
>> > 240/4 is still classified as RESERVED space. While you would certainly
>> > be able to use it on internal networks if your equipment supports it,
>> > you cannot use it as publicly routable space. There have been many
>> > proposals over the years to reclassify 240/4, but that has not happened,
>> > and is unlikely to at any point in the foreseeable future.
>>
>> While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in a private
>> setting, using them might also be .. a challenge.
>>
>> There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain
>> assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled with
>> a header that defines ..
>>
>> #define IN_BADCLASS(i) (((in_addr_t)(i) & 0xf0000000) == 0xf0000000)
>>
>> Michael
>>
--
40 years of net history, a couple songs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos