Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management

Frank Habicht geier at
Tue Nov 8 18:04:28 UTC 2016


On 11/8/2016 8:11 PM, Omo Oaiya wrote:
> On 7 November 2016 at 18:41, Owen DeLong <owen at
> <mailto:owen at>> wrote:
>     Any technology which would need this “strategic reserve” is a
>     technology which does not exist yet. From my perspective, the only
>     thing such a provision can do is encourage such technologies to be
>     developed with dependencies on IPv4. This is absolutely wrong-headed.  
> some future requirement which creates a demand for IPv4 addresses need
> not have anything to do with technology. 

I thought IPv4 is a technology?

> Otherwise we should consider recalling the equivalent of  34.36 /8
> unadvertised held in ARIN region and make them unusable
> -

(interesting page - thanks!)
I thought there was the possibility of requiring uniqueness and not
connecting to the global internet?

like at and    ;-)
because these sure fall in the 0.73 /8s in Africa that are not advertised.

route-views>sh ip bgp lo

> and wouldn't need to have the majority of draft policies discussed in
> the ARIN meeting about how to make IPv4 transfers easier. 

We WOULD need to have. just few years later (sorry, details, whatever
number), IPv4 is going to end. it is not a question of _if_ but a
question of _when_.
And I think we all know examples of cases where people are unprepared
and will be surprised - no matter whether it happens sooner or later.

like this one:
% Information related to '2001:43f8:1d0::/48'

% No abuse contact registered for 2001:43f8:1d0::/48

inet6num:       2001:43f8:1d0::/48
netname:        WACREN-v6

frank at SNET-SNH-DC-P1> show route table inet6.0 2001:43f8:1d0::/48

frank at SNET-SNH-DC-P1>> sh bgp ipv6 2001:43f8:1d0::/48
% Network not in table>

sorry to bring facts into this discussion.


More information about the RPD mailing list