Serious Juniper Hardware EoL Announcements

Fri Jun 17 17:25:15 UTC 2022

I don't want to glorify the idea of converting multicast space by 
commenting on it, however you're wrong in several particulars about the 
relationships around the IANA.

Most notably here is the issue that in relationship to what IP addresses 
can be handed out to who, and for what purpose, IANA is at the service 
of the IETF. At the end of the day the IP address registries are not 
that different from any of the other registries that IANA maintains on 
their behalf.

hope this helps,

Doug (Former IANA GM)

On 6/14/22 8:54 PM, bzs at theworld.com wrote:
> 
> Just to put a little more flesh on that bone (having spent about a
> decade going to ICANN conferences):
> 
> Although organized under ICANN, address allocation would generally be
> the role of IANA which would assign address blocks to RIRs for
> distribution.
> 
> It's a useful distinction because IANA and the RIRs act fairly
> independently from the umbrella ICANN org unless there's some very
> specific reason for, e.g., the ICANN board to interfere like some
> notion that the allocation of these addresses would (literally)
> threaten the stability and security of the internet, or similar.
> 
> Offhand (and following comments by people of competent jurisdiction) I
> can't see why IANA or the RIRs would resist this idea in
> principle. It's just more stock in trade for them, particularly the
> RIRs.
> 
> Other than they (IANA, RIRs) wouldn't do this unless the IETF issued a
> formal redeclaration of the use of these addresses.
> 
> Anyhow, that's roughly how the governance works in practice and has
> for over 20 years.
> 
> So, I think the first major move would have to be the IETF issuing one
> or more RFCs redefining the use of these addresses which would then
> put them into the jurisdiction of IANA who could then issue them
> (probably piecewise) to the RIRs.
> 
> On June 14, 2022 at 13:21 gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) wrote:
>   > Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
>   > > > Then it was "what can we do with what we can afford" now it's more
>   > > > like "What can we do with what we have (or can actually get)"?
>   > >
>   > > Like, working on better software...
>   >
>   > Like, deploying the other 300 million IPv4 addresses that are currently
>   > lying around unused.  They remain formally unused due to three
>   > interlocking supply chain problems: at IETF, ICANN, and vendors.  IETF's
>   > is caused by a "we must force everyone to abandon trailing edge
>   > technology" attitude.  ICANN's is because nobody is sure how to allocate
>   > ~$15B worth of end-user value into a calcified IP address market
>   > dominated by government-created regional monopolies doing allocation by
>   > fiat.
>   >
>   > Vendors have leapfrogged the IETF and ICANN processes, and most have
>   > deployed the key one-line software patches needed to fully enable these
>   > addresses in OS's and routers.  Microsoft is the only major vendor
>   > seemingly committed to never doing so.  Our project continues to track
>   > progress in this area, and test and document compatability.
>   >
>   > 	John
>   > 	IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project	
> 