I don’t see the difference between 6 and 7 usable addresses on all the /29s in the world as actually making a significant impact on the usable lifespan of IPv4.
Owen > On Nov 17, 2021, at 19:33 , Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am sad to see the most controversial of the proposals (127/16) first > discussed here. > > Try this instead? > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-lowest-address/ > > in my mind, has the most promise for making the internet better in the > nearer term. > > Could I get y'all to put aside the 127 proposal and read that over, instead? > > ... > > It's ok, I'll wait... > > ... > > There were two other proposals concerning 240/4 and 0/8 also worth > reading for their research detail and attention to history. > > The amount of work required to make 240/4 work in most places is now > very close to zero, having been essentially completed a decade ago. > 240/4 and 0/8 checking is not present in the SDN codes we tried, and > we ripped the 0/8 check out of linux 3? 4? years back. Saves a few ns. > > All but one iOt stack we tried worked with these, many of those stacks > still lack, or have poor ipv6 support. esp32 anyone? > > Just as ipv6 today is not globally reachable, these address spaces may > never be globally reachable, but defining a standard for their > potential sub-uses > seems like a viable idea.
