Linux Kernel Allows 0.0.0.0/8 as a Valid Address Range
IPv6 has been around for years. Why don't some people get with the program, instead of coming up with hacks to get around the address shortage. Even with this block, there still won't be enough IPv4 addresses just for mobile devices, let alone everything else. The longer people take to move to IPv6, the worse the problem is going to get. By comparison, on IPv6, the smallest address block, /64 provides as many addresses as the entire IPv4 address space squared. I get 256 of those /64s from my ISP. Some ISPs provide 65K of them to each customer. Why are we wasting our time trying to squeeze more life out of something that should have been retired years ago? Incidentally, this block represents less than 0.4% of the IPv4 address space. Will it really make a difference? https://www.technotification.com/2019/08/linux-kernel-allows-0-0-0-0-8-as-a-...
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 17:23, James Knott via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
IPv6 has been around for years. Why don't some people get with the program, instead of coming up with hacks to get around the address shortage. Even with this block, there still won't be enough IPv4 addresses just for mobile devices, let alone everything else. The longer people take to move to IPv6, the worse the problem is going to get. By comparison, on IPv6, the smallest address block, /64 provides as many addresses as the entire IPv4 address space squared. I get 256 of those /64s from my ISP. Some ISPs provide 65K of them to each customer. Why are we wasting our time trying to squeeze more life out of something that should have been retired years ago? Incidentally, this block represents less than 0.4% of the IPv4 address space. Will it really make a difference?
https://www.technotification.com/2019/08/linux-kernel-allows-0-0-0-0-8-as-a-...
Your sound logic aside, 0.0.0.0 represents a significant amount of cash to those who aren't letting IPv4 drop. That economic interest will be enough to push it through against almost any resistance. -- Giles https://www.gilesorr.com/ gilesorr@gmail.com
On 2019-08-14 09:01 AM, Giles Orr wrote:
Your sound logic aside, 0.0.0.0 represents a significant amount of cash to those who aren't letting IPv4 drop. That economic interest will be enough to push it through against almost any resistance.
There are now restrictions on handing out IPv4 address blocks, including showing need, etc.. So, there's not a lot of room for making money from this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion
On 8/14/19 9:15 AM, James Knott via talk wrote:
Your sound logic aside, 0.0.0.0 represents a significant amount of cash to those who aren't letting IPv4 drop. That economic interest will be enough to push it through against almost any resistance. There are now restrictions on handing out IPv4 address blocks, including showing need, etc.. So, there's not a lot of room for making money from
On 2019-08-14 09:01 AM, Giles Orr wrote: this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion
I am not sure how much ARIN and IANA will end up making from this. They are also big boosters of IPV6 But first the block would need to be moved from its special status and I have a feeling that that would take a long time. The latest whois still has it as special. You could also lump 127.0.0.0/8 into the same category of places to find new ipv4 addresses. Aside from providing more space for internal networks like 10.0.0.0/8 I can't see this becoming useful to anybody in the short term. All the routers in the internet would need to be willing to accept the 0.0.0.0/8 network and that could end up meaning software upgrades for lots of routers. I am not sure that there is any grand conspiracy to avoid IPV6 or make bags of cash here. # # ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use # available at: https://www.arin.net/resources/registry/whois/tou/ # # If you see inaccuracies in the results, please report at # https://www.arin.net/resources/registry/whois/inaccuracy_reporting/ # # Copyright 1997-2019, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd. # NetRange: 0.0.0.0 - 0.255.255.255 CIDR: 0.0.0.0/8 NetName: SPECIAL-IPV4-LOCAL-ID-IANA-RESERVED NetHandle: NET-0-0-0-0-1 Parent: () NetType: IANA Special Use OriginAS: Organization: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) RegDate: Updated: 2013-08-30 Comment: The address 0.0.0.0 may only be used as the address of an outgoing packet when a computer is learning which IP address it should use. It is never used as a destination address. Addresses starting with "0." are sometimes used for broadcasts to directly connected devices. Comment: Comment: If you see addresses starting with a "0." in logs they are probably in use on your network, which might be as small as a computer connected to a home gateway. Comment: Comment: This block was assigned by the IETF, the organization that develops Internet protocols, in the Standard document, RFC 1122, and is further documented in the Best Current Practice document RFC 6890. IANA is listed as the registrant to make it clear that this network is not assigned to any single organization. Comment: Comment: These documents can be found at: Comment: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1122 Comment: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6890 Ref: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/ip/0.0.0.0 OrgName: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority OrgId: IANA Address: 12025 Waterfront Drive Address: Suite 300 City: Los Angeles StateProv: CA PostalCode: 90292 Country: US RegDate: Updated: 2012-08-31 Ref: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/IANA -- Alvin Starr || land: (647)478-6285 Netvel Inc. || Cell: (416)806-0133 alvin@netvel.net ||
On 2019-08-14 09:43 AM, Alvin Starr via talk wrote:
I am not sure that there is any grand conspiracy to avoid IPV6 or make bags of cash here.
I see you're on Teksavvy. Are you aware they have IPv6? They've had it for years on ADSL, which is how you connect. They also started providing it over cable last year. Your email came from an IPv4 address.
On 8/14/19 9:56 AM, James Knott via talk wrote:
I am not sure that there is any grand conspiracy to avoid IPV6 or make bags of cash here. I see you're on Teksavvy. Are you aware they have IPv6? They've had it for years on ADSL, which is how you connect. They also started
On 2019-08-14 09:43 AM, Alvin Starr via talk wrote: providing it over cable last year. Your email came from an IPv4 address.
I am lazy. I have a bunch of infrastructure that I have and have to support in IPV4 and moving part of it to V6 will involve work on my part. I tried running up an IPV6 tunnel to Hurricane a few years back before being on TSI and it borked my firewall/router. And for whatever reason it seems that all my clients fit into the category of "you will have to pry my IPV4 addresses from my cold dead hands". -- Alvin Starr || land: (647)478-6285 Netvel Inc. || Cell: (416)806-0133 alvin@netvel.net ||
On 2019-08-14 10:07 AM, Alvin Starr via talk wrote:
I tried running up an IPV6 tunnel to Hurricane a few years back before being on TSI and it borked my firewall/router.
All you need is a router that supports DHCPv6-PD.
And for whatever reason it seems that all my clients fit into the category of "you will have to pry my IPV4 addresses from my cold dead hands".
That's the heart of the problem.
| From: James Knott via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | https://www.technotification.com/2019/08/linux-kernel-allows-0-0-0-0-8-as-a-... I don't know the reason for this. I'm too lazy to look right now. But I do trust the proponents that were listed. Not that I always agree with them but their motives are generally good. Dave Taht: main developer of versions of OpenWRT dealing with "bufferbloat". Gohn Gilmore: (among other things) co-founder of EFF and founder of FreeS/WAN project (I was part of that project). Paul Wouters: Torontonian; head of Libreswan project (I'm part of that project).
On 2019-08-14 10:28 AM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
I don't know the reason for this.
The motive is to squeeze a bit more life out of IPv4, when they should be putting the effort into moving to IPv6. IPv4 hasn't been adequate since it became necessary to use NAT to overcome the address shortage. This was a hack that caused it's own problems and now we have hacks on hacks, to try to keep IPv4 going long after it's best before date.
On 8/14/19 10:34 AM, James Knott via talk wrote:
On 2019-08-14 10:28 AM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
I don't know the reason for this. The motive is to squeeze a bit more life out of IPv4, when they should be putting the effort into moving to IPv6. IPv4 hasn't been adequate since it became necessary to use NAT to overcome the address shortage. This was a hack that caused it's own problems and now we have hacks on hacks, to try to keep IPv4 going long after it's best before date.
To squeeze a bit more life out of IPv4 these addresses would need to be routable over the internet at large and I am not sure that will be easy to do. As much as I might like to think linux development drives the internet companies insist on spending lots of money Cisco like gear and if Cisco won't route 0.0.0.0/8 then it just ain't going to happen. -- Alvin Starr || land: (647)478-6285 Netvel Inc. || Cell: (416)806-0133 alvin@netvel.net ||
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 10:34 AM James Knott via talk, <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
On 2019-08-14 10:28 AM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
I don't know the reason for this.
The motive is to squeeze a bit more life out of IPv4, when they should be putting the effort into moving to IPv6. IPv4 hasn't been adequate since it became necessary to use NAT to overcome the address shortage. This was a hack that caused it's own problems and now we have hacks on hacks, to try to keep IPv4 going long after it's best before date.
Not to be trite here but "hacks upon hacks," I think that just about sums up most operating systems built since Bell pulled support for MULTICS. It was then that Ken Thompson developed his own file and paging systems to fulfill his desire to write a Space Travel video game. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Unix Perhaps the hardest objective in any large scale change, is overcoming the status quo. For most business's, the operational costs for personnel training alone could be staggering. Business is hard wired to defray and defer costs. That is till necessity rears its head, then they will scream, shout, scramble and hack. I'm a operational manual reader, out of both interest and necessity, so I came across this helpdesk manual for residential ISP's with tests for ipv6 use.
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-631 I think that parallel development, for the foreseeable future as the current literature reflects, is the business watchword of the day. Ostensibly this is to keep costs down to the minimum. The last 18 months have posed significant hurdles for IT business's, as more and more latent defects, or undocumented hashes if you prefer, have come to light. It is the nature of science to slowly and deliberately entertain new ideas which challange the status quo of currently held beliefs. It is the nature of business to do the same, albeit for different reasons. Recognizing there is a problem is one thing, fixing systemic industry wide issues is another thing. From the beginning ipv4 was a DARPA networking test bed. Who knew at that time that personal home networks would become the titanic engines of industry that they are today. As a final thought, often the needs of the developing world are overlooked by our more developed societies. It could hardly be fair to to those comnunities, which have gone to the trouble and expense of joining the connected world to say to them now, all that equipment we juat sold you a few years ago is obsolete now, you will have to upgrade or lose service. My 0.2c FWIW
--- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
On 2019-08-14 12:20 PM, Russell Reiter wrote:
As a final thought, often the needs of the developing world are overlooked by our more developed societies. It could hardly be fair to to those comnunities, which have gone to the trouble and expense of joining the connected world to say to them now, all that equipment we juat sold you a few years ago is obsolete now, you will have to upgrade or lose service.
Actually, in some ways the developing world is ahead of the game here. They didn't have the built up IPv4 infrastructure that we have. The same thing happened with cell phones. There are many parts of the world where people who had never seen a wired phone, suddenly had cell service.
| From: James Knott via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | On 2019-08-14 12:20 PM, Russell Reiter wrote: | > all that equipment we | > juat sold you a few years ago is obsolete now, you will have to | > upgrade or lose service. | | Actually, in some ways the developing world is ahead of the game here. | They didn't have the built up IPv4 infrastructure that we have. The | same thing happened with cell phones. There are many parts of the world | where people who had never seen a wired phone, suddenly had cell service. As far as I know, pretty much all hardware made in the last 20 years ought to be able to do IPv6. Slightly more recently, pretty much all software ought to handle IPv5. I think that what doesn't support IPv6 is many people and deployments. I'm an example. The ISP that routes my /24 doesn't support IPv6. Not sure why. They must think that none of their clients need or want it. I could use IPv6 because I have a second ISP (Rogers) that does support IPv6. But it seems easier to leave things as they are. So I'm a typical cause of the problem. This would change in a flash if some site I cared about was IPv6-only. Say Google or Red Hat.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 12:26 PM James Knott via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
On 2019-08-14 12:20 PM, Russell Reiter wrote:
As a final thought, often the needs of the developing world are overlooked by our more developed societies. It could hardly be fair to to those comnunities, which have gone to the trouble and expense of joining the connected world to say to them now, all that equipment we juat sold you a few years ago is obsolete now, you will have to upgrade or lose service.
Actually, in some ways the developing world is ahead of the game here. They didn't have the built up IPv4 infrastructure that we have. The same thing happened with cell phones. There are many parts of the world where people who had never seen a wired phone, suddenly had cell service.
No question that the UN-wiring of the world has expanded individual social and economic potential, by increaseing access to knowledge and communications. I remember one of the earliest electrical conservation motivators in Canada was by the government giving an implied recycling credit to new purchasers of energy star appliances. I believe you got a tax credit on a purchase and the social credit for recycling. The manufactures were donating old energy inefficient appliances to developing nations. In hindsight it appears that the overall environmental costs would have been less, if the old devices were just scrapped and energy star appliances donated instead. I imagine the energy map of the day might bear striking similarity to this map of adoption of ipv6 by country. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html It will be interesting to see how it all works out. Russia and China and perhaps others are creating segregated networks for trusted endpoint to endpoint connections. However, I think that NAT and other hacks will be around for a while yet.
--- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 13:33, Russell Reiter via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
I imagine the energy map of the day might bear striking similarity to this map of adoption of ipv6 by country.
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
It will be interesting to see how it all works out.
While seemingly promoting adoption of IPv6 Google refuses to implement DHCPv6 in Android OS. See this article: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/androids-lack-of-dhcpv6-support-frustra... In my own experience configuring Wi-Fi networks, Android devices refuse pick up a stateful IPv6 address. This causes a delay during the initial connection to the network, during which a message "No Internet" appears for a few seconds. After that, the Internet connection works but over IPv4 only. So much for the adoption of IPv6, Google!
On 2019-08-15 07:13 PM, Val Kulkov via talk wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 13:33, Russell Reiter via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
I imagine the energy map of the day might bear striking similarity to this map of adoption of ipv6 by country.
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
It will be interesting to see how it all works out.
While seemingly promoting adoption of IPv6 Google refuses to implement DHCPv6 in Android OS. See this article: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/androids-lack-of-dhcpv6-support-frustra...
In my own experience configuring Wi-Fi networks, Android devices refuse pick up a stateful IPv6 address. This causes a delay during the initial connection to the network, during which a message "No Internet" appears for a few seconds. After that, the Internet connection works but over IPv4 only. So much for the adoption of IPv6, Google!
I don't have a problem with my Android devices connecting with IPv6. However, I agree that guy's refusal to implement DHCPv6 is bizarre. Given that this is causing many business customers to go with iPhone or other, instead of Android, you'd think someone could "encourage" him to implement it.
| From: Val Kulkov via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | While seemingly promoting adoption of IPv6 Google refuses to implement | DHCPv6 in Android OS. See this article: | https://www.techrepublic.com/article/androids-lack-of-dhcpv6-support-frustra... What's wrong with the recommendations of RFC 7934? I ask in naively since all I've done is quickly read it.
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 23:19, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
| From: Val Kulkov via talk <talk@gtalug.org>
| While seemingly promoting adoption of IPv6 Google refuses to implement | DHCPv6 in Android OS. See this article: | https://www.techrepublic.com/article/androids-lack-of-dhcpv6-support-frustra...
What's wrong with the recommendations of RFC 7934?
I ask in naively since all I've done is quickly read it.
RFC 7934 recommends "best practices", which include assignment of multiple IPv6 addresses to a host. This includes both stateless and stateful IPv6 addresses. In other words, RFC 7934 does not prohibit stateful IPv6 addresses. The point here is that Google's Android does not support stateful IPv6 addresses. If your network environment requires stateful IPv6 addresses and you have an Android device, you are SOL. There are use cases where stateful IPv6 may be useful or even necessary, but IMO this is a topic for another discussion. At present, network admins who need to support Android devices on their IPv6-enabled networks are stuck with SLAAC.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 4:13 PM Val Kulkov via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 13:33, Russell Reiter via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
I imagine the energy map of the day might bear striking similarity to this map of adoption of ipv6 by country.
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
It will be interesting to see how it all works out.
While seemingly promoting adoption of IPv6 Google refuses to implement DHCPv6 in Android OS. See this article: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/androids-lack-of-dhcpv6-support-frustra...
I seem to have my Pixel 3 pick up an IPv6 address via DHCP. Dhaval
participants (7)
-
Alvin Starr -
D. Hugh Redelmeier -
Dhaval Giani -
Giles Orr -
James Knott -
Russell Reiter -
Val Kulkov