From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD1C53CB37 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:19:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id C67AEAF; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:19:57 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1708352397; bh=J8KUJS50O0JU3kawziQI82GKqM9k7xnc+hj4K/smbkU=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=FGb7OXp8SP5SAruCV/+0JH9Bav4Z55zX0+wNx+wa13VUwEwIU/VejX6aVVQ07S1wI sXwbkYOsRuDPVrFDuQwnpq36/yBo/3YkYpYfIjjdFyHDdigzYKn8xJaRhfF2ZjA98d /Cc7SAxF1y5ofmCXw1dw1ag/TCmGeSsAgTP6lsuo= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id C473A9F for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:19:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:19:57 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Dave Taht via Nnagain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5cba1bdb-4b27-5c3e-9dd6-7af4a1edc1d0@swm.pp.se> References: Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [NNagain] ip address exhaustion podcast X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:19:59 -0000 On Mon, 19 Feb 2024, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote: > renting the allocations they own to their customers. (The 240/4 "for > future use" problem is a relative distraction, honestly! but amazon's > use of it *all* does irk me, as I had intended that space be used for > all of humanity). Certainly by finally charging for their IPV4 The fact that it's now used internally in places, is yet another reason it will never show up in the global routing table. Turning 240/4 into something usable on the wider Internet is a futile fight. It's however good for internal use as IPv4 already often needs translation boxes to talk to the global Internet (DFZ). So the work already done on making end systems able to use 240/4 is fine, but it also meant it's now used for internal things. So the fight should be to make it into proper RFC1918 style addresses for internal use so everybody agrees what's going on. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se