Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Jul 16 00:25:33 UTC 2015


> On Jul 15, 2015, at 16:45 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at ttec.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>>> I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody
>>> other then the ipv6 adherents.
>> 
>> Globally we were burning through about a /8 every month or two in "the
>> good old days." So in the best case scenario we'd get 32 more months of
>> easy to get IPv4, but at an overwhelming cost to re-implement every
>> network stack.
>> 
>> This option was considered back in the early 2000's when I was still
>> involved in the discussion, and rejected as impractical.
>> 
> 
> 
> Removing experimental status does not equate with the burden of making it equivalent use to the rest of the address space.
> 
> How about the ARIN burn rate post IANA runout? How long does 16 /8 last then?

Assuming you could somehow make 16 /8s available, do you really think that anyone would accept the idea of allocating
all of them to a single RIR, let alone the one in North America?

I tend to doubt it.

So ARIN’s burn rate post-runout really isn’t all that relevant.

> What would be wrong with removing experimental status and allowing one of the /8 to be used for low barrier to /16 assignment to any party demonstrating a willingness to coax usability of the space?

The wasted effort of people whose time is better spent deploying IPv6.

> Yes, any such effort has to run the gauntlet of IETF/IANA/RIR policy.

Which I would rather have those folks focused on something useful than wasting their time on this.

> CGN /10 managed. This could too, if all the naysayers would just step out of the way.

The /10 did not require modifying every system on the internet or even any systems on the internet. It just required setting aside a block.

Even then, it was actually more effort than it should have required, but it was pretty minimal. OTOH, it provided an actual usable solution to a real world problem.

What you are proposing just wastes a lot of people’s time with nothing to show for it.

Owen




More information about the NANOG mailing list