Serious Juniper Hardware EoL Announcements

Sat Jun 18 13:04:34 UTC 2022

I just have one question?

Why are we discussing IP allocations and IANA in an email thread about EoL
Juniper gear?

On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 1:26 PM Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220618/0b9ee4fe/attachment.html>