It is like you are trying to predict the next 20 years, but I'm sorry I find it too confusing.
Jeroen Massar <jer...@massar.ch> wrote: > > On 5 May 2022, at 15:36, Theo de Raadt <dera...@openbsd.org> wrote: > > > > Jeroen Massar <jer...@massar.ch> wrote: > > > >> I thus mostly see these odd prefixes (0/8, 127/8, 240/4) as extra RFC1918 > >> space > >> for those who do want to deploy more IPv4 as they can't be arsed after > >> almost > >> 30 years to finally do this IPv6 thing... > > > > But that's the dangerous part. > > > > If the operating systems suddenly allow use of this space for anything, and > > While security sensitive admins will too, there are way too many hosts that > have uptimes of several years and that will never be upgraded. > Rolling out such a change so that it is going to matter will be even slower > than an IPv6 rollout... decades. > > There are still stats out there which show how much ancient Android, or even > bare normal Linux is out there, and not forget about all the Windows boxes. > > Globally using these magic prefixes will thus become magic; operations teams > will never accept that debugging challenge, they have other things to do (in > the large corps: delivering ads, and those have to be delivered for sure, > hence why we have HTTPS everywhere now). > These magic prefixes don't have the properties of delivering ads, thus very > unlikely those types will use them for that (global routing). > > > everyone considers these address blocks new free-for-all new rfc1918 space, > > THEN the result will be that these spaces can never be globally announced > > later. > > IMHO they should not be, folks should be moving to IPv6 for global addresses. > > If the powers that be decide that it is "globally unique routeable space", > then I wish folks a lot of lot with debugging that. > > > You are suggesting facts on the ground should be allowed to beat the > > establishment of a policy. > > In case a policy is needed first, then one would have to wait for patching > too ;) > > > As an avid IPv6 user, IPv4 is only as compatibility on the edge for me, these > changes thus do not directly affect me (till the moment somebody wants to use > it globally and start breaking things). > > Greets, > Jeroen > >
