<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 8 November 2016 at 23:40, Owen DeLong <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><span class="gmail-"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Nov 8, 2016, at 09:11 , Omo Oaiya <<a href="mailto:Omo.Oaiya@wacren.net" target="_blank">Omo.Oaiya@wacren.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="gmail-m_3108875977083439416Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 7 November 2016 at 18:41, Owen DeLong <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><div>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. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">some future requirement which creates a demand for IPv4 addresses need not have anything to do with technology. </span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>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.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>How do you explain the secondary market in ARIN region? A new use for IPv4 addresses?</div><div><br></div><div>The point is to cater for unanticipated use. Nothing stops us from repurposing or discarding if not needed but to presume the future is unwise.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Otherwise we should consider recalling the equivalent of 34.36 /8 unadvertised held in ARIN region and make them unusable - </span><span style="font-size:12.8px"><a href="http://bgp.potaroo.net/iso3166/v4cc.html" target="_blank">http://bgp.potaroo.net/<wbr>iso3166/v4cc.html</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>You are engaging in a logical fallacy here in that you appear to believe that unadvertised == unutilized and this simply is NOT the case.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>ah ha! We have been teaching the fact that unadvertised does not mean unutilised in this community, but keep getting :</div><div><br></div><div> sh ip bgp a.b.c.0/22 lo</div><div>%Network not in table</div><div><br></div><div>sh bgp ipv6 2001:43f8:XXXX::/48</div><div>% Network not in table</div><div><br></div><div>And that allocations utilisation reviews can only be done through global routing table </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">and wouldn't need to have the majority of draft policies discussed in the ARIN meeting about how to make IPv4 transfers easier. </span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>I think this is untrue. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Which bit is untrue? That the majority of the draft policies in the last ARIN public meeting was about making IPv4 easier to get? - <a href="https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_38/ppm.html">https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_38/ppm.html</a></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>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.</div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>I’m not sure if 3.44 /8s would even satisfy the current ARIN waiting list.</div></div></blockquote><div><div style="text-align:-webkit-right"><br></div><span style="text-align:-webkit-right"><div><span style="text-align:-webkit-right"><br></span></div>Read again. 34.36 /8 not 3.44 /8s i.e over 576 million IPv4 addresses unadvertised in the ARIN region</span><br><div> </div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span class="gmail-"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>We should be encouraging new technologies to be developed WITHOUT dependencies on IPv4 and with full IPv6 support from day 1.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></span>No, we are talking of a /12 under current policy, a /13 under Alain’s proposal and nothing at all under Andrew’s proposal.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We are talking about the last /8 in the softlanding policy i.e all the addresses we are dicing and slicing total just about 16 million addresses.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>I favor nothing at all as the time for protecting people from failing to deploy IPv6 should be considered past at this point.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We should be empowering them to deploy IPv6 and not depriving them of the IPv4 they need to do this. <br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div> 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.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We also need to ensure that the African community can participate without being forced to acquire resources they need from prohibitive transfer markets.</div></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><a href="http:///" target="_blank"></a></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>