Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

Wed Mar 16 22:48:04 UTC 2022

It’s a business problem for the RIR’s. Selling / leasing known defective products is against lots of consumer law. 
-- 
Mark Andrews

> On 17 Mar 2022, at 03:43, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>> On Mar 15, 2022, at 19:23 , Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 16 Mar 2022, at 02:54, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Having spent nearly 15 years on the ARIN Advisory Council, I think I’m able
>>> to claim some detailed knowledge on the subject.
>>> 
>>> In general, the RIRs themselves maintain neutrality about such things, looking to their
>>> respective communities for input on what to do. However, so long as the IETF and
>>> has not designated the space Unicast Address Space to be delegated to the
>>> RIRs for allocation/assignment, IANA will not delegate it to the RIRs and the RIRs
>>> won’t, therefore, delegate it to users.
>>> 
>>> If you really want to see this happen (and I still argue that the amount of effort already wasted
>>> discussing this idea vastly exceeds what would be needed towards IPv6 to get beyond
>>> caring about it), then the first step must be to convince the IETF to designate the
>>> space IPv4 Unicast and instruct the IANA to begin issuing those /8s to the RIRs.
>>> 
>>> Once that happens, the rest of the allocation process is basically automatic. From a policy
>>> perspective at the RIR level, it will be no different than say 4/8 or 1/8.
>> 
>> Actually it would be fundamentally different to 4/8 or 1/8.  You are looking at firmware upgrades
>> rather than dealing with squatters and out-of-date ACLs both of which are self-inflicted by one
>> of the parties.  Routers and end devices that don’t know how to hand 240/4 are no self inflicted
>> injuries.  Issuing 4/8 or 1/8 worked for parties that had been following the rules.  With 240/4
>> there where no rules to follow which results in RIR’s leasing known defective addresses.
> 
> I was speaking from an RIR allocation perspective, NOT talking about the technological hurdles
> to implementation.
> 
> I was specifically responding to someone’s question about how the RIRs would be impacted by
> this if it were to come to pass.
> 
> I addressed your concern in the following paragraph as an aside, however.
> 
>> 
>>> Now, convincing vendors to update their firmware, software, etc. is another matter
>>> and entirely outside of the control of the RIRs. Merchant compliance with IETF standards
>>> is generally considered useful, but it is entirely voluntary and even in the best of
>>> circumstances doesn’t every happen instantaneously and almost always involves
>>> some stumbles along the way.
>>> 
>>> Owen
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 15, 2022, at 02:54 , Sylvain Baya <abscoco at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear NANOG-ers,
>>>> Hope this email finds you in good health!
>>>> Please see my comments below, inline...
>>>> 
>>>> Le mardi 15 mars 2022, <bzs at theworld.com> a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Barry,
>>>> Thanks for your email, brother!
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> But the RIRs are the ones fielding requests for IPv4 space, and have
>>>> some notion of how policy implementation might work in practice, so
>>>> should have a lot of useful input.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ...of course, it appears that RIRs have the opportunity
>>>> to add their useful inputs, as Impact Analysis Report
>>>> (IAR); during the Policy Development Process (PDP)
>>>> initiated by the *appropriate* [1] Internet community.
>>>> They explain it themselves here [2].
>>>> __
>>>> [1]: <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020>
>>>> [2]: <https://www.nro.net/accountability/rir-accountability/q-and-a/>
>>>> 
>>>> Shalom,
>>>> --sb.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On March 14, 2022 at 00:45 niels=nanog at bakker.net (Niels Bakker) wrote:
>>>>> * bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) [Mon 14 Mar 2022, 00:31 CET]:
>>>>>> Personally I'd rather hear from the RIRs regarding the value or not 
>>>>>> of making more IPv4 space such as 240/4 available. They're on the 
>>>>>> front lines of this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You've got your policy development process diagram upside down. The 
>>>>> community decides what the RIRs implement. They're not in touch with 
>>>>> merchant silicon manufacturers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>    -- Niels.
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>>       -Barry Shein
>>>> 
>>>> Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com             | http://www.TheWorld.com
>>>> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
>>>> The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Best Regards !
>>>> __
>>>> baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure>
>>>> Subscribe to Mailing List: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/>
>>>> __
>>>> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»
>>>> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
>>>> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka at isc.org
>> 
>