| ▲ | mike_d 2 days ago |
| The map also does a good job showing why we need to do away with multicast/class E and reuse the address space. |
|
| ▲ | icedchai 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| At this point, time would be better spent moving to IPv6, don't you think? |
| |
| ▲ | mike_d 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | We have been trying to deploy IPv6 for 20 years now. This would be comparatively easier and buy us another 20 years to finish v6 deployment. | | |
| ▲ | icedchai 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | A ton of old equipment would need to be upgraded to use 240/4 for IPv4 unicast. We'd run into weird issues where it works for some people and not others. I'm not convinced. If this was done 25 years ago, maybe. | |
| ▲ | zamadatix 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | And 50% of the internet traffic is IPv6. The proposal here is to introduce a separate (arguably harder) change which would start at 0% support again. Beyond that, it'd just be a temporary fix. Just 240/4 allowed specifically for private network use (like the 10/8 range)... that I could get behind though. This would still exclude 255.255.255.255/32 of course. |
| |
| ▲ | UltraSane a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The problem is that you can't really move completely to IPv6. You actually will have to run both IPv4 and IPv6 networks indefinitely. Which isn't a lot of fun. | | |
| ▲ | icedchai a day ago | parent [-] | | Now, yes. But eventually, we'll reach a tipping point where that isn't necessary. When? Your guess is as good as mine. | | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | "You actually will have to run both IPv4 and IPv6 networks *indefinitely*." |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Faaak 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| and what, earn 5 more years till we have the same problem? |
| |
|
| ▲ | kortilla 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can’t use multicast because multicast addresses work today on private networks |
|
| ▲ | ranger_danger 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Surely something from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_IP_addresses could be repurposed? |
| |
| ▲ | teddyh 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Why? It would be to the benefit of relatively few and be an enormous technical problem for decades for everyone. If we did this, the IPv4 addresses would run out again after a few months at most, leaving us all in the same position we are in today, but also with a huge technical problem of fixing all the old devices which had these now-repurposed networks hardcoded. If you are fine with doing the work of obsoleting old equipment, then just start using IPv6. | |
| ▲ | sgjohnson 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No. It will take 10 years for everyone to update their router configuration/software to treat the new “formely-reserved” addresses as global unicast. There’s no point in doing that whatsoever. That effort would be spent much better by adopting IPv6. | |
| ▲ | yardstick 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 240/4 can be hijacked/used as private IP space currently by a lot of devices. I think Windows might be the hold out. But for internal routing and IoT it’s very useful. Can never be used as publicly routable space. I’d like to see it added to the official list of private space alongside RFC1918. | | | |
| ▲ | teaearlgraycold 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Holy cow. Didn’t realize there is an entire /4 reserved for future use. |
|
|
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | doughecka 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Lol, then what do we do with all the multicast traffic? |
