Just replying to Joe's post here to add a little more context to at least one of the problems that will certainly appear if this would come about.
FreeBSD operators have been using this space for quite a long time for many NAT'ing reasons including firewalls and other services behind them for jail routing and such. https://dan.langille.org/2013/12/29/freebsd-jails-on-non-routable-ip-addresses/ That's just one example that I've seen repeated in multiple other ways. One of which a jail operator with about 250 addresses out of that range that enabled his jail routed services. Of course that can be changed but really for just this small of a influx of addresses ? Seems really wasteful to me. -- J. Hellenthal The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. > On Nov 20, 2021, at 23:54, Joe Maimon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Jay Hennigan wrote: >>> On 11/19/21 10:27, William Herrin wrote: >>> Howdy, >>> That depends on your timeline. Do you know many non-technical people >>> still using their Pentium III computers with circa 2001 software >>> versions? Connected to the Internet? >> >> There are lots of very old networked industrial machines with embedded >> computers operated by non-network-savvy people that are still very much in >> use. >> >> Think CNC machines in machine shops, SCADA systems, etc. I wouldn't be a bit >> surprised to find quite a few 2001-era boxes still in service. > In the context of re-purposed IPv4 address scopes specialized equipment will > tend to be fairly limited in its communication needs and unlikely to be > affected. > > I certainly hope they are, otherwise the security implications are severe. > > How about we recast this as general purpose internet communicating platforms > likely to have occasion to interact with these re-purposed addresses are > nearly certain to undergo an upgrade or more over the next decade, or how > many non-technical people are still using the original wrtg platform to > connect them to the internet? > > And yes, its quite possible that even then those addresses may have some more > baggage than the typical IPv4 block in use today (which are hardly clean > bills of health more often than not). > > But the sooner the effort begins the more likely the utilitarian value will > be there if or when its needed. > > Joe
