Tweaks to IPv4 could free up 'hundreds of millions of addresses'
By Dan Robinson, Wed 1 Jun 2022
- https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/01/ipv4_proposed_changes/

"It may be nearly three years since the world officially exhausted
all of the available IPv4 internet addresses, but now a new
initiative has been proposed that could free up hundreds of
millions of addresses that are currently unused - or are they?
While the world is still slowly moving towards broader adoption of
the newer IPv6 protocol, which offers a vast address space, the
widespread continued use of IPv4 has caused problems because all
available ranges of the roughly 4.3 billion addresses it supports
have largely been allocated.
Now it seems that Seth Schoen, formerly a senior staff technologist
at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and co-founder of Let's
Encrypt, has made proposals collectively labelled either the IPv4
Unicast Extensions Project or the IPv4 Cleanup Project (both are
used on the project's GitHub page)." ...

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 6/7/22 4:50 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Tweaks to IPv4 could free up 'hundreds of millions of addresses'
> By Dan Robinson, Wed 1 Jun 2022
> - https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/01/ipv4_proposed_changes/

I'm of mixed feelings about the IPv4 Cleanup Project.

I don't think that the reserved address ranges could be justified
/today/ if they were trying to be allocated, definitely not at the sizes
that they are. It would probably be possible to get single /24s for
some things, but definitely not a /8.

I think the zeroth address is simply legacy and could easily go away.

I also feel like some people are trying to squeeze every single IP
address they can out of the IPv4 pool is only going to delay the
inevitability of /needing/ to move to IPv6 in some capacity.

I also feel like the effort that some people are putting into retaining
IPv4 is probably questionable effort and probably would be better spent
on transitioning to IPv6.

Some of the effort spent on reclaiming IPv4 addresses is largely
tantamount to RFC 1918 / 7793 addressing and will be NATed to globally
routed IPv4 addresses or protocol translated to IPv6 addresses. Meaning
that the legacy IPv4 that people are trying to clean up likely won't
work on the open Default Free Internet for a long time.

I've also seen statements along the lines of "Let's start this effort
/now/ so that we can hopefully benefit from it in 10 years. Read: if we
don't start, we won't ever be able to use it. So start /now/."

Is there legacy that is being maintained for legacy reasons? Yes. Can
some of that legacy go away? Probably. Should /new/ green field
deployments work to newer standards? I think so.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 2022-06-08, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> I also feel like the effort that some people are putting into retaining
> IPv4 is probably questionable effort and probably would be better spent
> on transitioning to IPv6.

I have steadfastly refused to use IPV6 and disable it on all of my devices.
I'm just not interested in dealing with it. At the rate this "transition"
is going by the time it's really necessary to use IPV6 I'll either be too
old to care about the damned internet or pushing up daisies.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 08/06/2022 22:36, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2022-06-08, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>> I also feel like the effort that some people are putting into retaining
>> IPv4 is probably questionable effort and probably would be better spent
>> on transitioning to IPv6.
>
> I have steadfastly refused to use IPV6 and disable it on all of my devices.
> I'm just not interested in dealing with it. At the rate this "transition"
> is going by the time it's really necessary to use IPV6 I'll either be too
> old to care about the damned internet or pushing up daisies.
>

one peculiarity I have seen is:

On a IPv4 network, devices use the configured IP address of the DNS. In
my case I have a pi Hole so all DNS queries all go to teh Pi Hole.

When running on IPv6, mobile phones over Wifi seemed able to get their
DNS results from a DNS OUTSIDE my LAn despite there being a DNS on teh
LAN itself.

This was despite the Pi Hole also set up for DNS over IPv6.

the computers on the LAN used the internal DNS.

I ended up having to disable IPv6 support in the router to ensure teh Pi
Hole DNS was used by *ALL* devices.

On 08/06/2022 22:45, SH wrote:
> On 08/06/2022 22:36, Roger Blake wrote:
>> On 2022-06-08, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>> I also feel like the effort that some people are putting into retaining
>>> IPv4 is probably questionable effort and probably would be better spent
>>> on transitioning to IPv6.
>>
>> I have steadfastly refused to use IPV6 and disable it on all of my
>> devices.
>> I'm just not interested in dealing with it. At the rate this "transition"
>> is going by the time it's really necessary to use IPV6 I'll either be too
>> old to care about the damned internet or pushing up daisies.
>>
>
> one peculiarity I have seen is:
>
> On a IPv4 network, devices use the configured IP address of the DNS. In
> my case I have a pi Hole so all DNS queries all go to teh Pi Hole.
>
> When running on IPv6, mobile phones over Wifi seemed able to get their
> DNS results from a DNS OUTSIDE my LAn despite there being a DNS on teh
> LAN itself.
>
> This was despite the Pi Hole also set up for DNS over IPv6.
>
> the computers on the LAN used the internal DNS.
>
> I ended up having to disable IPv6 support in the router to ensure teh Pi
> Hole DNS was used by *ALL* devices.

PS. this issue still persisted when running Wireguard on the same
machine as the Pi Hole and with the mobile devices connecting to home
via VPN before then accessing the open internet.

A work colleague tells me that in the IPv6 standard there is more
freedom to use other DNS rather than use the IP address that the device
is TOLD is the DNS via DHCP.

If anyone knows how to resolve this, I'd like to know.

On 6/8/22 3:50 PM, SH wrote:
> A work colleague tells me that in the IPv6 standard there is more
> freedom to use other DNS rather than use the IP address that the device
> is TOLD is the DNS via DHCP.

I'm not aware of any more or less liberty to use the DNS server provided
by the network in IPv4 vs IPv6.

IMHO, IPv4 and IPv6 are rather agnostic when it comes to DNS.

I will say that there has been more of an effort over the last five or
so years for alternate DNS protocols, many of which are used by devices
to explicitly bypass local DNS servers. DNS over HTTPS (a.k.a. DOH) and
DNS over TLS (DOT) are two of the biggest candidates. Both DOH and DOT
use something other than TCP / UDP port 53. As such, filtering them
becomes harder.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 6/8/22 3:36 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
> I have steadfastly refused to use IPV6 and disable it on all of my devices.

That's your choice. I've chosen differently.

> I'm just not interested in dealing with it. At the rate this
> "transition" is going by the time it's really necessary to use IPV6
> I'll either be too old to care about the damned internet or pushing
> up daisies.

I started at least configuring IPv6 sometime around 2005 as I ran into
services, notably Microsoft Exchange, that required IPv6 to be enabled
on the server. I specifically chose to manually configure / control
IPv6 on the LAN so that I didn't end up with an unmanaged protocol and
unpredictability therefrom.

I've been doing actively using dual stack since about 2010 including
IPv6 internet connectivity at home and on my servers.

I think that I'm rare in that I run email on IPv6, which many discourage.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 06/09/2022 06:16 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>
> I will say that there has been more of an effort over the last five or so years for alternate DNS protocols,
Some of which may be built into your browser which might happily ignore the system wide DNS settings.

SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
> one peculiarity I have seen is:
>
> On a IPv4 network, devices use the configured IP address of the DNS. In
> my case I have a pi Hole so all DNS queries all go to teh Pi Hole.
>
> When running on IPv6, mobile phones over Wifi seemed able to get their
> DNS results from a DNS OUTSIDE my LAn despite there being a DNS on teh
> LAN itself.
>
> This was despite the Pi Hole also set up for DNS over IPv6.
>
> the computers on the LAN used the internal DNS.
>
> I ended up having to disable IPv6 support in the router to ensure teh Pi
> Hole DNS was used by *ALL* devices.

It depends how your IPv6 devices are getting their addresses. If DHCPv6,
things should work much the same as v4. If SLAAC is in operation, the
router advertisement (RA) can tell the device to find its DNS via DHCPv6.

It is possible the router is either not sending the 'Other' flag (saying to
use DHCPv6 to acquire DNS information) or the DHCPv6 isn't responding.
Maybe the device has a fallback DNS setting built into it in that case?
Wouldn't be surprised if Android phones use Google Public DNS, for
instance.

https://www.networkacademy.io/ccna/ipv6/stateless-dhcpv6

Theo

On 09/06/2022 10:07, Johann Klammer wrote:
> On 06/09/2022 06:16 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>
>> I will say that there has been more of an effort over the last five or so years for alternate DNS protocols,
> Some of which may be built into your browser which might happily ignore the system wide DNS settings.
>
>
to the point of not ignoring IPv4 DNS settings but ignoring IPv6 DNS
settings?

On 6/9/22 6:02 AM, SH wrote:
>  to the point of not ignoring IPv4 DNS settings but ignoring IPv6 DNS
> settings?

Yes.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Am Dienstag, 07. Juni 2022, um 22:09:36 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor:

> On 6/7/22 4:50 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> > Tweaks to IPv4 could free up 'hundreds of millions of addresses'
> > By Dan Robinson, Wed 1 Jun 2022
> > - https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/01/ipv4_proposed_changes/
>
> I'm of mixed feelings about the IPv4 Cleanup Project.

I'm not. I think the entire idea of doing so is not a good one.
There are several reasons:
- It will slow down the transition to IPv6 (that is definitely needed)
- The "new" addresses will cause many problems: All routers, operating
systems and firewalls MUST be updated. The chance is really high that
most of them won't be changed, so the new addresses, e.g. from the
current localhost area, can't be properly used in many networks.

> I think the zeroth address is simply legacy and could easily go away.

True, but this must be implemented in EVERY device that uses IPv4 to
function. This will take years to be done and many devices can't be
changed, like old operating systems, routers etc..

> I also feel like some people are trying to squeeze every single IP
> address they can out of the IPv4 pool is only going to delay the
> inevitability of /needing/ to move to IPv6 in some capacity.

True, and these people must be stopped doing so.
> I also feel like the effort that some people are putting into
> retaining IPv4 is probably questionable effort and probably would be
> better spent on transitioning to IPv6.

Th only way is to move to IPv6, if all normal stuff is usable via IPv6,
the IPv4 addresses are free again and can be used for legacy purposes.
> Some of the effort spent on reclaiming IPv4 addresses is largely
> tantamount to RFC 1918 / 7793 addressing and will be NATed to
> globally routed IPv4 addresses or protocol translated to IPv6
> addresses. Meaning that the legacy IPv4 that people are trying to
> clean up likely won't work on the open Default Free Internet for a
> long time.

Full ack. The new global addresses will create many problems at many
places.
> I've also seen statements along the lines of "Let's start this effort
> /now/ so that we can hopefully benefit from it in 10 years. Read: if
> we don't start, we won't ever be able to use it. So start /now/."

We must start/continue transition to IPv6 ASAP.
> Is there legacy that is being maintained for legacy reasons? Yes.
> Can some of that legacy go away? Probably. Should /new/ green field
> deployments work to newer standards? I think so.

There are still very bad companies like SONY that sell (junk) products
(PlayStation 4) that can't use IPv6 at all.

Am Mittwoch, 08. Juni 2022, um 21:36:10 Uhr schrieb Roger Blake:

> On 2022-06-08, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> > I also feel like the effort that some people are putting into
> > retaining IPv4 is probably questionable effort and probably would
> > be better spent on transitioning to IPv6.
>
> I have steadfastly refused to use IPV6 and disable it on all of my
> devices. I'm just not interested in dealing with it. At the rate this
> "transition" is going by the time it's really necessary to use IPV6
> I'll either be too old to care about the damned internet or pushing
> up daisies.

Further or later you will be offline. I also don't know a reason why
people refuse to learn IPv6. If you managed to learn IPv4, it is very
easy.

Am Mittwoch, 08. Juni 2022, um 22:45:30 Uhr schrieb SH:

> On a IPv4 network, devices use the configured IP address of the DNS.
> In my case I have a pi Hole so all DNS queries all go to teh Pi Hole.
>
> When running on IPv6, mobile phones over Wifi seemed able to get
> their DNS results from a DNS OUTSIDE my LAn despite there being a DNS
> on teh LAN itself.
>
> This was despite the Pi Hole also set up for DNS over IPv6.
>
> the computers on the LAN used the internal DNS.
>
> I ended up having to disable IPv6 support in the router to ensure teh
> Pi Hole DNS was used by *ALL* devices.

This is the worst idea.
You need to make sure that your computers get the IPv6 DNS resolver by
DHCPv6 (if your routers runs a DHCPv6) and via the IPv6 Router
Advertisement.

Am Mittwoch, 08. Juni 2022, um 22:50:59 Uhr schrieb SH:

> A work colleague tells me that in the IPv6 standard there is more
> freedom to use other DNS rather than use the IP address that the
> device is TOLD is the DNS via DHCP.

This is completely wrong.
IPv6 just provides a new way to get the IPv6 DNS resolver address. It
is inside the Router Advertisement. There is also DHCPv6 that does
mostly the same as DHCPv4.

A computer can decide if it uses DHCPv6 or not. It can also decide if
it uses the DNS in the Router Advertisement or not.

Am Donnerstag, 09. Juni 2022, um 13:02:29 Uhr schrieb SH:

> to the point of not ignoring IPv4 DNS settings but ignoring IPv6
> DNS settings?

This is because DHCPv6 and IPv6 Router Advertisement are additional
ways to get the address. If you keep the default settings, the computer
will use the addresses from there too. You need to configure your
router.

On 10/06/2022 11:00, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 08. Juni 2022, um 22:45:30 Uhr schrieb SH:
>
>> On a IPv4 network, devices use the configured IP address of the DNS.
>> In my case I have a pi Hole so all DNS queries all go to teh Pi Hole.
>>
>> When running on IPv6, mobile phones over Wifi seemed able to get
>> their DNS results from a DNS OUTSIDE my LAn despite there being a DNS
>> on teh LAN itself.
>>
>> This was despite the Pi Hole also set up for DNS over IPv6.
>>
>> the computers on the LAN used the internal DNS.
>>
>> I ended up having to disable IPv6 support in the router to ensure teh
>> Pi Hole DNS was used by *ALL* devices.
>
> This is the worst idea.
> You need to make sure that your computers get the IPv6 DNS resolver by
> DHCPv6 (if your routers runs a DHCPv6) and via the IPv6 Router
> Advertisement.
>

i seem to recall that when setting up Pi hole, I put in a IPv4 address
192.168.0.29 and there was no option to add a IPv6 address EVEN though
there was a toggle option for enable IPv6 support in Pi Hole.

In the Vodafone router I have a toggle option for IPv6 support. I can
also enter in the IPv4 address of my preferred DNS but there is no box
for entering an IPv6 address for my preferred DNS.....

Hmmm what next?

On 6/10/22 3:58 AM, Marco Moock wrote:
> I'm not. I think the entire idea of doing so is not a good one.

I don't know if the idea of the IPv4 Cleanup Project is good or bad.
But, my opinion probably doesn't matter to most.

> There are several reasons:
> - It will slow down the transition to IPv6 (that is definitely needed)

I think it will serve as an excuse for those that want to avoid IPv6.
Nothing will make them move faster.

Those that want to adopt IPv6 will do so in spite of and independent of
the IPv4 Cleanup Project.

> - The "new" addresses will cause many problems: All routers, operating
> systems and firewalls MUST be updated.

Nope. That's not true.

Your client computer has no idea if my 192.168.1.0 is the zeroth address
in 192.168.1.0/24 or the middle of the 192.168.0.0/23 network. You
don't have to change anything.

The things that will need to be updated are things that are directly
attached to the network using zeroth addresses.

So the very vast majority of things will not need to be updated to
support zeroth addresses.

> The chance is really high that most of them won't be changed, so the
> new addresses, e.g. from the current localhost area, can't be properly
> used in many networks.

It's only a locally significant problem. Things that want to use the
zeroth address may need to update. Things that aren't local don't need
to care.

> True, but this must be implemented in EVERY device that uses IPv4 to
> function. This will take years to be done and many devices can't be
> changed, like old operating systems, routers etc.

Nope. (See above.)

> True, and these people must be stopped doing so.

Good luck convincing them.

> Th only way is to move to IPv6, if all normal stuff is usable via IPv6,
> the IPv4 addresses are free again and can be used for legacy purposes.

I feel like you're contradicting or time jumping yourself. Consider if
I have a currently normal IPv4, and I add an IPv6, it's still "normal"
and not "legacy".

Please rephrase your statement.

> Full ack. The new global addresses will create many problems at
> many places.

I view /most/ of what they are doing as locally scoped explicitly
because doing it globally is effectively a non-starter.

> We must start/continue transition to IPv6 ASAP.

Agreed.

We should also start hosting services on IPv6. I'm sick and tired of
people discouraging running mail servers on IPv6.

> There are still very bad companies like SONY that sell (junk) products
> (PlayStation 4) that can't use IPv6 at all.

horse ... water ...

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 6/10/22 1:51 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> Nope.  That's not true.
>
> Your client computer has no idea if my 192.168.1.0 is the zeroth address
> in 192.168.1.0/24 or the middle of the 192.168.0.0/23 network.  You
> don't have to change anything.

What's more is that we've been using zeroth addresses for years on
point-to-point links with a /31. Other systems on the Internet have no
problem with these.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Grant Taylor wrote:

> Your client computer has no idea if my 192.168.1.0 is the zeroth address in
> 192.168.1.0/24 or the middle of the 192.168.0.0/23 network.  You don't have to
> change anything.

Exactly, my ISP gives my a /29 subnet, but rather than assigning it that way and
getting 6 usable addresses plus a useless subnet addr and broadcast addr, I
assign all 8 addrs as /32 and get two more usable IPs out of it ...

On 2022-06-10, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
> We must start/continue transition to IPv6 ASAP.

I disagree. I certainly will not be changing over to IPV6. After working with
IPV4 practically since it was deployed I'm just not willing to learn or even
blindly use another protocol. I also see no good reason for every damned
electronic device to be internet-connected in the first place, which seems
to be at least part of the driving force for this. (In general if a product
has "smart" in its name or description I want nothing to do with it.)

Fortunately, as I stated previously, the "transition" is going so slowly the
chances are I won't have to deal with it in my lifetime and what happens
after that is not my concern.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2022-06-10, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
> Further or later you will be offline. I also don't know a reason why
> people refuse to learn IPv6. If you managed to learn IPv4, it is very
> easy.

I see no good reason for it.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am Freitag, 10. Juni 2022, um 11:51:46 Uhr schrieb SH:

> i seem to recall that when setting up Pi hole, I put in a IPv4
> address 192.168.0.29 and there was no option to add a IPv6 address
> EVEN though there was a toggle option for enable IPv6 support in Pi
> Hole.
>
> In the Vodafone router I have a toggle option for IPv6 support. I can
> also enter in the IPv4 address of my preferred DNS but there is no
> box for entering an IPv6 address for my preferred DNS.....
>
>
> Hmmm what next?

Getting good hardware. Some home routers are crap - like these from
Vodafone. It is not a fault of IPv6 - it is just junk hardware/software.
I am sorry to tell you - but it is not your fault, it is Vodafone's.

Am Samstag, 11. Juni 2022, um 04:52:35 Uhr schrieb Roger Blake:

> On 2022-06-10, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
> > Further or later you will be offline. I also don't know a reason why
> > people refuse to learn IPv6. If you managed to learn IPv4, it is
> > very easy.
>
> I see no good reason for it.

Ok, can you calculate 2³²?
This is the maximum amount of possible IPv4 addresses. Even this isn't
enough and many areas of that space can't be used for global
addressing. This is the reason for IPv6 and there is no way around it.

Am Freitag, 10. Juni 2022, um 22:58:00 Uhr schrieb Andy Burns:

> Exactly, my ISP gives my a /29 subnet, but rather than assigning it
> that way and getting 6 usable addresses plus a useless subnet addr
> and broadcast addr, I assign all 8 addrs as /32 and get two more
> usable IPs out of it ...

Have you also changed all computers there that they don't treat the BC
address as BC?