The Reg does 240/4

Thu Feb 15 16:21:56 UTC 2024

>
> This is the first time we've presented this case so I'm uncertain as to
> how you've come to the conclusion that I've "presented [my] case numerous
> times" and that we "continue to persist".

This may be the first time your group has presented your opinions on 240/4,
but you are not the first. It's been brought up at IETF multiple times,
multiple drafts submitted, multiple debates / convos / arguments had.

At the end of the day, the following is still true.

1. Per RFC2860, IANA maintains the registry of IPv4 allocations to RIRs,
and the IPv4 Special Address Space Registry.
2. The IPv4 Special Address Space Registry records 240.0.0.0/4 as Reserved
, per RFC1112, Section 4.
3. Any changes to the IPv4 Special Address Space Registry require IETF
Review , RFC7249, Section 2.2.
4. IETF Review is defined in RFC5226.

In summation, the status of 240/4 CAN ONLY be changed IF the IETF process
results in an RFC that DIRECTS IANA to update the IPv4 Special Address
Space Registry. To date, the IETF process has not done so.

Making the case on mailing lists , forums, or media outlets may try to win
hearts and minds, but unless the IETF process is engaged with, nothing will
change. Of course, some will want to reply that 'the IETF are meanies and
don't want to do what we want'. All I'd say to that is , welcome to the
process of making / changing internet standards.  :)

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 6:29 AM Christopher Hawker <chris at thesysadmin.au>
wrote:

> Owen,
>
> This is the first time we've presented this case so I'm uncertain as to
> how you've come to the conclusion that I've "presented [my] case numerous
> times" and that we "continue to persist".
>
> I also don't know how us diverting energy from 240/4 towards IPv6
> deployment in privately-owned networks will help. People cannot be made to
> adopt IPv6 (although IMO they should) and until they are ready to do so we
> must continue to support IPv4, for new and existing networks. While we can
> encourage and help people move towards IPv6 we can't force adoption through
> prevention of access to IPv4.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2024 4:23 AM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker <chris at thesysadmin.au>
> *Cc:* Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc>; North American Operators' Group <
> nanog at nanog.org>
> *Subject:* Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
> This gift from the bad idea fairy just keeps on giving. You’ve presented
> your case numerous times. The IETF has repeatedly found no consensus for it
> and yet you persist.
>
> Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this
> wasted effort had been put into that, instead.
>
> Owen
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2024, at 14:16, 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/20240215/86bc397a/attachment.html>