3 ms·

Oof, remember all the complaints about broken things when ".dev" became a valid TLD? And that was never specified as something you could rely on. Use of 127/8

Oof, remember all the complaints about broken things when ".dev" became a valid TLD? And that was never specified as something you could rely on. Use of 127/8 goes back at least 27 years to RFC1700 [1], maybe earlier. Just let IPv4 run out, force ISPs stuck in the past to upgrade hardware and let us finally move on. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1700 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1700: Page 4 "Internal host loopback address. Should never appear outside a host."

danw1979 5y ago
Nobody is going to want address space that might not be reachable through paths that contain older equipment that might blackhole traffic to it. Am I overestimating the potential problem ? or maybe these addresses just going to be held back while the new standard gets adopted ?
- progbits 5y ago
  Yeah - on one hand you would need to use this "quickly" to help with IPv4 exhaustion before it becomes irrelevant. On the other hand (as you said) trying this too quickly will just mean poor routability. From the draft: The Internet community can use network probing with any of several measurement-oriented platforms to investigate how usable these addresses are at any particular point in time, as well as to localize medium-to-large-scale routing problems. [...] Any network operator to whom such addresses are made available by a future allocation will have to examine the situation in detail to determine how well its interoperability requirements will be met. --- I now also see my comment above is quite negative. Don't get me wrong, the proposal seems technically neat and well researched. However I just don't see it as practical, and even if it was I wouldn't like it to happen and just delay the inevitable pain.
dtaht 5y ago
A host nowadays consists of one or more vms, piled on top of a container, piled on top of a hypervisor.

danw1979 5y ago

Nobody is going to want address space that might not be reachable through paths that contain older equipment that might blackhole traffic to it. Am I overestimating the potential problem ? or maybe these addresses just going to be held back while the new standard gets adopted ?

progbits 5y ago
Yeah - on one hand you would need to use this "quickly" to help with IPv4 exhaustion before it becomes irrelevant. On the other hand (as you said) trying this too quickly will just mean poor routability. From the draft: The Internet community can use network probing with any of several measurement-oriented platforms to investigate how usable these addresses are at any particular point in time, as well as to localize medium-to-large-scale routing problems. [...] Any network operator to whom such addresses are made available by a future allocation will have to examine the situation in detail to determine how well its interoperability requirements will be met. --- I now also see my comment above is quite negative. Don't get me wrong, the proposal seems technically neat and well researched. However I just don't see it as practical, and even if it was I wouldn't like it to happen and just delay the inevitable pain.

dtaht 5y ago

A host nowadays consists of one or more vms, piled on top of a container, piled on top of a hypervisor.