ipv4/25s and above

Sat Nov 19 12:53:21 UTC 2022

On 11/18/22 13:44, Joe Maimon wrote:

>
> its almost 2023. /31 support is easily mandatory. You should make it 
> mandatory.

I don't make the gear.

> How many customer addressing designs does that total, 2? So that would 
> be 1 more than you have already? Dont buy it.

That's fine.

>
> Its 2023, your folk should be able to handle addressing more advanced 
> than from the 90s.

Customers will do what they do.

> And your betting the future on IPv6?

Actually, yeah.

> The only issue with it is traceroute although that isnt necessarily a 
> problem.

We and some of our customers find that useful.

>
> And the CPE sourced traffic should either be all internal or sourced 
> from the loopback.

It's not my CPE, I don't get to make the rules.

>
> OTOH CoPP protection becomes a lot easier when fewer of the CP 
> addressing is globally routed.

As does not connecting any cables to the device.

Seriously, all good points. We just have more pressing issues to deal with.

> Truth is the real issue isnt CPE support, its user support. Most 
> users(even their "IT" folk) really cant wrap their brain around more 
> than the bare basic concepts, if that much.
>
> And you can simply say, IPv4 is limited, this is the base model 
> addressing included with the service, if your inabilities are 
> preventing you from using networking techniques that have been 
> standardized and usable for decades, then feel free to pony up for 
> either for your comfort level or for support of your inabilities.

Okay.

> This is the crux. So long as you can obtain more, justifiable 
> consumption is rewarded with additional resources, dis-incentivizing 
> any addressing efficiency progress from the ancient /30 p2p + /29(or 
> larger) routed block.
>
> You may wish to lay groundwork to nibble backwards when runout occurs 
> for you.
>
> Its on Afrinic to try and preserve their pool if they wish to by doing 
> things such as getting it across that progress in addressing 
> efficiency is an important consideration in fulfilling requests for 
> additional resources.

We aren't really going to expend too many resources on trying to delay 
the use of IPv6. I understand that I am speaking from a place of 
priviledge, having as much IPv4 as we do, but even then, we will connect 
as many as we connect using either "efficient" or "inefficient" 
techniques, and neither will prevent run-out, eventually.

We want to be able to keep servicing customers, long after we are gone. 
That is what we care about.

>
> If they need more, they pay more and they get more. Most of the rest 
> of the world is operating or moving to operate in that fashion.

It's fine for most of the world to do what it wants. I won't begrudge 
them that. Over here, we will do what we feel works for us.

>
> You would still require them to submit a formal request documenting 
> their need. And paying more is likely to mean that its a more honest 
> request.

We do this already, only without asking them for cash.

>
> But see the crux above. If your RiR isnt frowning on such behavior 
> then its poor strategy to implement it.

I might have missed the part where RIR's tell me how to operate.

>
> Although, if you can get away with it, allocating the /30 + /29 and 
> implementing it in an easy-to-clawback approach might be a good strategy.

There is reasonable customer movement between competitors that address 
space comes and goes.

> Thats a question of internal discipline without motivating external 
> factors. Odds are those factors will arrive and I would advise 
> preparedness for them.

Have you ever been in sales :-)?

Mark.