3 ms·
yea that'd probably be reasonable to try to reclaim then. probably only useful for private use unfortunately though, i bet there's a lot of stuff that'll impro
by simcop2387 7y ago
yea that'd probably be reasonable to try to reclaim then. probably only useful for private use unfortunately though, i bet there's a lot of stuff that'll improperly route them given the range.
- dtaht 7y agoWe've had 225/8-231/8 up and running for 6+ months, with patches for various routing daemons. Running a gauntlet with 240/4 and 0/8 now working seemed best. In our exploration of converting these 120m addresses from a multicast definition to unicast, we only had to change the kernel with two tiny patches, and recompile 89 fedora packages. Openwrt was less. The patches for frr and bird, straightforward.
- dtaht 7y agoAs for private or public use, certainly there is demand for a larger CGNAT address space, somewhere, and allocation of a portion of 225-231 for that might drive adoption there. Still, the addresses need to become routable, and from there (aside from politics and depoloyment delay), globally routable is the dream for most of these new addresses, in 5-10 years.