Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
On 11/20/21 11:01, Michael Thomas wrote:
There is just as big a block of addresses with class D addresses for broadcast. Is broadcast really even a thing these days? I know tons of work went into it, but it always seemed that brute force and ignorance won out using unicast. Even if it has some niche uses, I seriously doubt that it needs 400M addresses. If you wanted to reclaim ipv4 addresses it seems that class D and class E would be a much better target than loopback.
It's multicast, not broadcast. A very small chunk is used by some routing protocols and it has uses in several streaming applications, but indeed it's much larger than it practically needs to be. However, IMNSHO, all of these proposals if adopted are really just going to make a few people richer in the short term after their adoption and will not do anything significant to solve the problem of IPv4 exhaustion long-term. -- Jay Hennigan - jay@west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
On 11/20/21 11:41 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
On 11/20/21 11:01, Michael Thomas wrote:
There is just as big a block of addresses with class D addresses for broadcast. Is broadcast really even a thing these days? I know tons of work went into it, but it always seemed that brute force and ignorance won out using unicast. Even if it has some niche uses, I seriously doubt that it needs 400M addresses. If you wanted to reclaim ipv4 addresses it seems that class D and class E would be a much better target than loopback.
It's multicast, not broadcast. A very small chunk is used by some routing protocols and it has uses in several streaming applications, but indeed it's much larger than it practically needs to be.
However, IMNSHO, all of these proposals if adopted are really just going to make a few people richer in the short term after their adoption and will not do anything significant to solve the problem of IPv4 exhaustion long-term.
Yeah, sorry brain fart. I'm mostly in the camp of just getting on with it with ipv6, but starving the beast doesn't have a great track record. We are talking about 20% of the address space that's being wasted so it's not nothing. Mike
On 20/11/2021 19:59, Michael Thomas wrote:
but starving the beast doesn't have a great track record. We are talking about 20% of the address space that's being wasted so it's not nothing.
Starving the beast is actively working to make IPv4 cost-prohibitive. I only wish those whom Jay refers to, had fewer addresses to buy & sell - definitely not more. There are ~4.3B addresses in the entire 32-bit IPv4 space, and there are ~4.3B /64s in every IPv6 /32. The D/E IPv4 space would make speculators rich, nothing else of note. -- Tom
participants (3)
-
Jay Hennigan -
Michael Thomas -
Tom Hill