The Reg does 240/4

Fri Feb 16 15:13:35 UTC 2024

inline

Christopher Hawker <chris at thesysadmin.au> writes:

> Hi Christian,
>
> The idea to this is to allow new networks to emerge onto the internet, without potentially having to fork out
> substantial amounts of money.

That would then be using IPv6 with IPv4 transition translation etc at the
ingress/egress to your new shiny ISP. 

>
> I am of the view that networks large enough to require more than a /8 v4 for a private network, would be in the
> position to move towards IPv6-only. Meta has already achieved this
> (https://engineering.fb.com/2017/01/17/production-engineering/legacy-support-on-ipv6-only-infra/) by rolling
> out dual-stack on their existing nodes and enabling new nodes as
> IPv6-only.

Any network of any size can justify using IPv6.

You will though face some old telco monopolistic / Tier 1 incumbencies
who find their benefit in networking is to be as anti social to fellow
networks as their lack of imagination on the value of connectivity can
facilitate and regret they can't charge time and distance but very happy
to charge on ingress and egress. 

>I cannot think of a bigger waste of
> resources that have the possibility of being publicly used, than to allocate an additional 16 x /8 to RFC1918
> space.
>

I expect it would take many years for 240/4 to have universal
routing  as a public resource. That maybe the first challenge to get it through IETF

The other challenge is that the block is currently marked experimental
and really if you want to make a plan to use all or part of that
block. Then that should be for experimental purposes.

Just saying it is now public isn't really an innovation. 

Also once reallocated its lost to future experimental uses. 

> The same argument could be had about using larger than a /8 for private networking. Why not use IPv6?
>

well now you are speaking hexadecimal! 

> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker

best

Christian 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:51 PM
> To: Christopher Hawker <chris at thesysadmin.au>
> Cc: Denis Fondras <xxnog at ledeuns.net>; nanog at nanog.org <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 
>  
> excuse top posting -
>
> I don't see a case for shifting 240/4 into public IP space if it is just
> going to sustain the rentier sinecures of the existing IPv4
> incumbencies. In other words if RIRs don't use it boost new entrants it
> will just add another knot to the stranglehold we are in vis IPv4. 
>
> I can see a potential case for shifting it from experimental to private
> space given the fact that "the rest of us" without public IP space and
> natted behind CGNATs have taken to use IPv4 for wireguard, containers,
> zero configs and so on, to tie our various locations, services and
> applications together within our own private distributed nets and expose
> our services for public consumption over IPv6.
>
> C
>
> Christian de Larrinaga
>
> Christian Christopher Hawker <chris at thesysadmin.au> writes
>
>> Hi Denis,
>>
>> It will only be burned through if RIR communities change policies to allow for larger delegations than what is
>> currently in place. I believe that some level of change is possible whilst limiting the exhaustion rate, e.g. allowing
>> for delegations up to a maximum holding of a /22, however we shouldn't go crazy (for want of a better phrase)
>> and allow for delegations of a /20, /19 etc.
>>
>> If this was only going to give us a potential 1-3 years' worth of space, then I would agree in saying that it is a
> waste
>> of time, would take far too long to make the space usable and wouldn't be worth it. However, as long as we
> don't
>> get greedy, change the maximum allowed delegation to large delegations, and every Tom/Dick/Harry applying
>> for a /16 allocation then 240/4 will last us a lengthy amount of time, at least a few decades.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Christopher Hawker
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris=thesysadmin.au at nanog.org> on behalf of Denis Fondras via NANOG
>> <nanog at nanog.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:10 PM
>> To: nanog at nanog.org <nanog at nanog.org>
>> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 
>>  
>> Le Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 03:24:21PM -0800, David Conrad a écrit :
>>> This doesn’t seem all that positive to me, particularly because it’s temporary
>>> since the underlying problem (limited resource, unlimited demand) cannot be
>>> addressed.
>>> 
>>
>> I agree with this.
>> Yet I am in favor of changing the status of 240/4, just so it can get burned
>> fast, we stop this endless discussion and can start to deploy IPv6 again.
>>
>> Denis

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga 