FYI, this is part of a NANOG thread concerning IPv4 class E repurposing. The entire thread starts at https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2021-March/212499.html <https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2021-March/212499.html>.
Regards, Greg > Begin forwarded message: > > From: fredbaker.i...@gmail.com (Fred Baker) > Subject: AWS Using Class E IPv4 Address on internal Routing > Date: March 9, 2021 at 6:53:33 AM PST > > The "RFC" you're looking for is probably > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02, which was not agreed to > and so has no RFC number. The fundamental issue that was raised during that > discussion was that while repurposing class e would provide a few more IPv4 > addresses and so delay the need to replace the IPv4 protocol for some period > of time, APNIC's experience with a new /8 in 2011 (it was given the /8 in > January 2011, and by April had largely distributed it to its members) > suggests that the address space would be used up almost immediately if > distributed publicly, and if used privately doesn't benefit the many networks > that really honestly wish that we could squeeze more than 2^32 addresses into > a 32 bit container. > > I'd really suggest using IPv6. Networks like Reliance JIO in India, which has > turned off or never turned on IPv4 for most of its services, find that they > don't need IPv4 apart from customer preference. > >> On Mar 9, 2021, at 6:36 AM, Douglas Fischer <fischerdouglas at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> So, if an organization wants to use that, they will require from the vendors >> the compliance with that RFC. >> >> >> >> Em ter., 9 de mar. de 2021 ?s 11:00, Forrest Christian (List Account) <lists >> at packetflux.com> escreveu: >> Back a little bit ago when the thread about running out of RFC-1918 space >> was going on, I was going to make a suggestion about repurposing the Class E >> space in the case where one ran out of space, assuming one could get the >> vendors on your network to support this address range. >> >> I sort of discarded the suggestion just because of the whole issue of that >> range being hardcoded as invalid in so many implementations that this didn't >> seem all that useful. >> >> On the other hand, if you're large enough that you're running out of >> RFC-1918 space you might be able to exert enough power over select vendors >> to get them to make this work for selected purposes. Router-to-Router >> links, especially between higher-end routers seems to be one of those cases >> that it might be useful. It might be the case that Amazon is already >> doing this.... >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 12:07 PM Douglas Fischer <fischerdouglas at >> gmail.com> wrote: >> Has anybody seen that also? >> >> P.S.: I'm completely in favor of a complementary RFC assing FUTURE USE >> exclusively to "Between Routers" Link Networks... >> >> -- >> Douglas Fernando Fischer >> Eng? de Controle e Automa??o >> >> >> -- >> - Forrest >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 833 bytes > Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP > URL: > <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210309/d37f58af/attachment.sig> >
_______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list sunset4@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
