There's no chance in hell class E, 127/8 or even 0/8 will work within 20 years.
The effort is doomed.
If you thought it was a lot of work to upgrade to IPv6, forget about it.
- Hey ISP or cloud provider, do you want some of that sweet sweet class E?
- Will users be able to connect to it?
- Nah. Well, some will. As long as you're happy with people spending the next 20 years complaining about how "your servers are always broken", you can have some addresses.
It's a complete waste of effort that should instead be spent adding support for IPv6.
Spend huge effort on something temporary throw-away, or on something long term? The temporary thing will take at least as long to implement, and you will never know if you're actually done or not.
It's really interest, I think it's partly this attitude by the IPv6 folks that have stymied IPv6 adoption.
It's this - you are an idiot, this is a waste etc. The reality, out of the millions of users of IPv4 space, some will find some use for 0/8. Will it be worth as much as other IPv4? Maybe not. But hard to imagine it being worth zero.
The other piece, if IPv6 is so great - then this does nothing to stop the rapid adoption of IPv6 by both the major players (cloud providers) and small players.
> It's really interest, I think it's partly this attitude by the IPv6 folks that have stymied IPv6 adoption.
If you don't like the answer the doctor gives you, the answer isn't to stop going to the doctor.
> It's this - you are an idiot
I didn't attack the person. Please stop misrepresenting me. You are the one getting personal here.
> The reality, out of the millions of users of IPv4 space, some will find some use for 0/8.
Who? Really. Who?
To be even more specific: Who, who today is hungry for public IPv4 space, and doesn't really care if it's publicly usable or not?
> Will it be worth as much as other IPv4? Maybe not.
You're missing the point. Something that's "kinda broken forever" is much worse than not having it at all, when there is an alternative.
If you can't get IPv4 for your cloud service, then you price the working addresses such that avoiding waste is a thing.
> But hard to imagine it being worth zero.
No, not zero. Just a worse value proposition than switching to IPv6, with a "good and working IPv4" proxy path in the mean time.
> The other piece, if IPv6 is so great - then this does nothing to stop the rapid adoption of IPv6 by both the major players (cloud providers) and small players.
I'm not competing. I'm saying it's a bad solution, and there's a better solution out there that's cheaper, more effective, and more long term.
This proposal an investment in throwaway work, and I would recommend that nobody adopt it.
Also note that at the rate addreses were allocated when we ran out, they were going at an /8 per 3 weeks. This is a huge investment to buy a month or two before we're right back in exactly the same spot? Clearly a bad idea.
Client side: NAT. Solved.
Server side: Who in their right mind would use 127/8 on their server? IPv4 is just not that expensive.
The effort is doomed.
If you thought it was a lot of work to upgrade to IPv6, forget about it.
- Hey ISP or cloud provider, do you want some of that sweet sweet class E? - Will users be able to connect to it? - Nah. Well, some will. As long as you're happy with people spending the next 20 years complaining about how "your servers are always broken", you can have some addresses.
It's a complete waste of effort that should instead be spent adding support for IPv6.
Spend huge effort on something temporary throw-away, or on something long term? The temporary thing will take at least as long to implement, and you will never know if you're actually done or not.