The Reg does 240/4

Wed Feb 14 01:32:09 UTC 2024

>
> We aren't trying to have a debate on this. All we can do is present our
> case, explain our reasons and hope that we can gain a consensus from the
> community.

Respectfully, if you're just putting your case out there and hoping that
people come around to your position, it's never going to happen.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:15 PM Christopher Hawker <chris at thesysadmin.au>
wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> We aren't trying to have a debate on this. All we can do is present our
> case, explain our reasons and hope that we can gain a consensus from the
> community.
>
> I understand that some peers don't like the idea of this happening and yes
> we understand the technical work behind getting this across the line. It's
> easy enough for us to say "this will never happen" or to put it into the
> "too hard" basket, however, the one thing I can guarantee is that will
> never happen, if nothing is done.
>
> Let's not think about ourselves for a moment, and think about the
> potential positive impact that this could bring.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:23 AM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker <chris at thesysadmin.au>
> *Cc:* North American Operators' Group <nanog at nanog.org>;
> ausnog at lists.ausnog.net <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>; Christopher Hawker via
> sanog <sanog at sanog.org>; apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net <
> apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
>
> Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This
> won't be easy to accomplish and it will take some time.
>
>
>  It won't ever be 'accomplished' by trying to debate this in the media.
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:05 AM Christopher Hawker <chris at thesysadmin.au>
> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> [Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on AusNOG,
> SANOG and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers to engage in the
> discussion on their respective forums.]
>
> Just to shed some light on the article and our involvement...
>
> Since September 1981, 240/4 has been reserved for future use, see
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml.
> This space has always been reserved for future use and given the global
> shortage of available space for new network operators we feel it is
> appropriate for this space to be reclassified as Unicast space available
> for delegation by IANA/PTI to RIRs on behalf of ICANN.
>
> At present, the IP space currently available for RIRs to delegate to new
> members is minimal, if any at all. The primary goal of our call for change
> is to afford smaller players who are wanting to enter the industry the
> opportunity to do so without having to shell out the big dollars for space.
> Although I do not agree with IP space being treated as a commodity (as this
> was not what it was intended to be), those who can afford to purchase space
> may do so and those who cannot should be able to obtain space from their
> respective RIR without having to wait over a year in some cases just to
> obtain space. It's not intended to flood the market with resources that can
> be sold off to the highest bidder, and this can very well be a way for
> network operators to plan to properly roll out IPv6. At this point in time,
> the uptake and implementation of IPv6 is far too low (only 37% according to
> https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6) for new networks to deploy IPv6
> single-stack, meaning that we need to continue supporting IPv4 deployments.
>
> The reallocation of IPv4 space marked as Future Use would not restrict or
> inhibit the deployment of IPv6, if anything, in our view it will help the
> deployment through allowing these networks to service a greater number of
> customers than what a single /24 v4 prefix will allow. Entire regions of an
> economy have the potential to be serviced by a single /23 IPv4 prefix when
> used in conjunction with IPv6 space.
>
> Now, some have argued that we should not do anything with IPv4 and simply
> let it die out. IPv4 will be around for the foreseeable future and while it
> is, we need to allow new operators to continue deploying networks. It is
> unfair of us to say "Let's all move towards IPv6 and just let IPv4 die"
> however the reality of the situation is that while we continue to treat it
> as a commodity and allow v6 uptake to progress as slowly as it is, we need
> to continue supporting it v4. Some have also argued that networks use this
> space internally within their infrastructure. 240/4 was always marked as
> Reserved for Future Use and if network operators elect to squat on reserved
> space instead of electing to deploy v6 across their internal networks then
> that is an issue they need to resolve, and it should not affect how it is
> reallocated. It goes against the bottom-up approach of policy development
> by allowing larger network operators to state that this space cannot be
> made unicast because they are using it internally (even though it's not
> listed in RFC1918), and its reallocation would affect their networks.
>
> In the APNIC region, there is a policy which only allows for a maximum of
> a /23 IPv4 prefix to be allocated/assigned to new members and any more
> space required must be acquired through other means. If (as an example)
> APNIC were to receive 3 x /8 prefixes from the 240/4 space this would allow
> for delegations to be made for approximately the next ~50 years whereas if
> policy was changed to allow for delegations up to and including a /22 this
> would extend the current pool by well over 20 years, based on current
> exhaustion rates and allowing for pool levels to return to pre-2010 levels.
>
> Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This
> won't be easy to accomplish and it will take some time. However, if we do
> nothing then nothing will happen. The currently available pool has reached
> severe exhaustion levels yet we have a block representing about 6% of the
> total possible IP space which may not seem like a lot yet it can go a long
> way.
>
> This call for change is not about making space available for existing
> networks. It is about new networks emerging into and on the internet. While
> we do work towards IPv6 being the primary addressing method we need to
> continue allow those who may not be able to deploy IPv6 to connect to the
> internet.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris=thesysadmin.au at nanog.org> on behalf of
> Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 13, 2024 5:19 PM
> *To:* North American Operators' Group <nanog at nanog.org>
> *Subject:* The Reg does 240/4
>
> I know we had a thread on this last month, but I can't remember what it
> was titled.
>
> ElReg has done a civilian-level backgrounder on the 240/4 issue, for anyone
> who wants to read and scoff at it.  :-)
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/09/240_4_ipv4_block_activism/
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
>
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink
> jra at baylink.com
> Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC
> 2100
> Ashworth & Associates       http://www.bcp38.info          2000 Land
> Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA      BCP38: Ask For It By Name!           +1 727 647
> 1274
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20240213/8396d404/attachment.html>