Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management
owen at delong.com
Tue Nov 8 22:40:05 UTC 2016
> On Nov 8, 2016, at 09:11 , Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net> wrote:
> On 7 November 2016 at 18:41, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> 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.
Please provide an example of something which could create an unforeseen demand for IPv4 addresses which has nothing to do with a new use for IPv4 addresses.
> Otherwise we should consider recalling the equivalent of 34.36 /8 unadvertised held in ARIN region and make them unusable - http://bgp.potaroo.net/iso3166/v4cc.html <http://bgp.potaroo.net/iso3166/v4cc.html>
You are engaging in a logical fallacy here in that you appear to believe that unadvertised == unutilized and this simply is NOT the case.
While those addresses are not being advertised on the global internet, it is not at all unlikely that they are being utilized in production networks that are attached to networks that are advertised to the internet and/or otherwise need global uniqueness.
> and wouldn't need to have the majority of draft policies discussed in the ARIN meeting about how to make IPv4 transfers easier.
I think this is untrue. First, recalling those addresses would actually be quite difficult merely from a legal and tactical perspective. Second, even if we were able to recall the ones that are not in use, it’s likely less than 10% of that amount that would become available.
I’m not sure if 3.44 /8s would even satisfy the current ARIN waiting list.
> We should be encouraging new technologies to be developed WITHOUT dependencies on IPv4 and with full IPv6 support from day 1.
> Agreed and we shall. The IAB statement on this was posted in the community list. They appreciate the need for dual-stack and time reviews take. We have to remember that we are only talking of 1 /8 here.
No, we are talking of a /12 under current policy, a /13 under Alain’s proposal and nothing at all under Andrew’s proposal.
I favor nothing at all as the time for protecting people from failing to deploy IPv6 should be considered past at this point. If you couldn’t figure it out in the 25 years of warning that you had or in the nearly 3 years since IANA ran out of space, than really, I think that the community’s obligations to protect your future developments from early obsolescence are past at this point.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD