[arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)
hostmaster at uneedus.com
hostmaster at uneedus.com
Mon Sep 13 14:14:15 EDT 2021
I dont have a problem with this space being private use. I DO have a
problem with these addresses appearing on the public internet, especially
when one of the biggest OS vendors does not support these addresses. Thus
I am opposed to the addresses being assigned to ARIN or any other RIR.
In fact, as long as you avoid windows, it is actually not that hard to use
these addresses now, without ANY involvement with IETF or otherwise.
The problem that I would like the IETF to fix is multihoming in IPv6.
It was supposed to be possible to deploy more than one router, such as
routers from different providers and the system was supposed to
automatically grab an address from each one. Buy 1/2 the needed
bandwidth from two providers and the multihome problem is automatic.
The problem is that most OS's cannot deal with this and while many
addresses may be assigned, one from each router, the OS will generally
route all the traffic over only one of them, which kinda defeats the
purpose of multihoming.
If this problem could be solved, PA addresses could be used by most
multihome IPv6 networks, which would cleanly get rid of the router table
overflow issue of running BGP to multihome and the PI issue.
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Mon, 13 Sep 2021, Fernando Frediani wrote:
> 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 ?
> 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
>> 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
>> 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)"
>>> 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:
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML