[arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at gmail.com
Mon Sep 13 13:54:03 EDT 2021


I don't know who was the "genius" back in the past on network vendors 
who embedded to not forward traffic for that amount of /8's market as 
Future Use. I think that was one of the most disastrous decisions ever 
made in this area of IP space.

Using 240/4 on network equipment now a days is quiet easy, and stuff has 
been fixed in both Network Equipment and Linux. However there are other 
problems to be taken in consideration such as Network Operators who hard 
coded filters on their Border Routers to not accept routes from this 
range and mainly the legacy devices which will never get an firmware 
upgrade to fix that. If I am not wrong Juniper routers although they 
have fixed it they still come with the flag disabled by default.

One good thing that 240/4 could be easily used and properly assigned to 
Autonomous Systems by the RIRs is to be used for Backbone Addressing, so 
all the currently "more noble" Public IPv4 used for backbone addressing 
could be reused for proper Global Routing and the 240/4 for internal 
backbone addressing. In that way it is possible to have proper Reverse 
DNS and also be used for peering between two networks without risk of 
overlapping.

Would it be IETF task to allocate all those /8's to the RIRs if that 
would be considered ?

Regards
Fernando

On 13/09/2021 14:35, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
> The MAJOR problem with the use of 240/4 is the hard coding of these 
> addresses in Router and Workstation operating systems.  This is NOT an 
> ARIN problem.
>
> I understand it is just a flag and a recompile in Linux, but trying to 
> get Cisco and Microsoft to go along with this idea is going to take a 
> bit more effort than complaining about it on this list.
>
> I see no reason to do that, as I have more IPv6 addresses than I can 
> dream of.
>
> I have been running my home network off of ONE ipv4 address, as well 
> as two /48s of IPv6.  I do not understand why IPv6 is so hated.  I 
> also understand that Win10/11 does not like it all if you turn off the 
> V6 stack and throws random errors.
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2021, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> The refusal to deploy 240/4 are mostly on the basis that it would 
>>> take just as much code effort to do that as it would to put v6 on a 
>>> box, with the exception that most boxes already have a v6 stack, so 
>>> actually more effort, yet yielding substantially less gain.
>> Turns out that was wrong for the last 20 years. Time to shut that one 
>> down. It was a stupid self fulfilling mantra from the getgo. As if it 
>> is the place of the IETF to determine how engineers ought to spend 
>> their efforts. Their role is to enable. Not throw up roadblocks. Same 
>> here.
>>
>> Also, your wording is misleading.
>>
>> More correctly, "the refusal to step out of the way of deployment of 
>> 240/4 (by those who may  have wished to do so)"
>>
>> Joe
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list