legacy /8

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Fri Apr 2 19:09:52 CDT 2010

On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 03:13:16PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Sigh... Guess you missed the last several go-arounds of
> Running out of IPv4 will create some hardships. That cannot be avoided.

	we won't run out, we won't exaust, we are -NOT- killing the last tuna.
	what we are doing is roughly what was anticipated in RFC 2050, we will
	get more efficent utilization of all the space.

> Even if we were to reclaim the supposed unused legacy /8s, we'd still
> only extend the date of IPv4 runout by a few months.

	wrong analogy.  there won't be "green field" space - but there will
	still be lots to go around... for legacy style use (e.g. the Internet
	as we know it today)  --  want to do something different? then use IPv6.

> The amount of effort required to reclaim those few IPv4 addresses would
> vastly exceed the return on that effort. Far better for that effort to be
> directed towards the addition of IPv6 capabilities to existing IPv4
> deployments so as to minimize the impact of IPv4 exhaustion.

	here we disagree.  Im all in favor of demonstrating 85% utilization
	of the IPv4 address pool before handing out new address space.


> Owen
> On Apr 2, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> > I am curious. Once we're nearing exhausting all IPv4 space will there ever come a time to ask/demand/force returning all these legacy /8 allocations? I think I understand the difficulty in that, but then running out of IPs is also a difficult issue. :-)
> > 
> > For some reason I sooner see all IPv4 space being exhausted than IPv6 being actually implemented globally.
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Jeroen

More information about the NANOG mailing list