Argh… Throughout this message (and the message I replied to), 240.0.0.0/4 is misrepresented as 204/4. Apologies, those references should read 240/4 or 240.0.0.0/4.
Owen > On May 16, 2019, at 11:51 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On May 16, 2019, at 11:03 AM, Michel Py <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Owen, >> >>>> Michel Py wrote : >>>> Typical use case : large org that has outgrown 10/8 and squats >>>> un-announced DoD prefix. >>>> They know it's dumb, but IPv6 does not cut it either. They pick the lesser >>>> of two evils. >> >>> Owen DeLong wrote : >>> I’d argue that IPv6 is the lesser of evils and fixing whatever broken >>> system they have that causes IPv6 to “not cut it” is the least evil. >> >>>> Regardless the technical difficulties, it would have been nice to have >>>> 240/4. >> >>> In order to make 240/4 work, we would have had to update the code on >>> virtually every system on the internet and most of the applications. >> >> Not if it was for private use only. Only the organizations that would choose >> to use 240/4 would have to change. And these orgs have serious purchasing >> power, so if they decided to use 240/4, they would have a very good point >> telling their vendors to make their stuff work with it. >> If we had done that earlier, we would have a de-jure standard instead of a >> de-facto disgrace. > > Well, sort of… We’d still have to have altered the code base for every system > that was going to be able to use 240/4. > > Let’s see what that entails… > Any of those organizations have Linux boxes? — I bet the answer is yes… > OK… Have to update the Linux Kernel… > BSD? — Yep — OK, that too… > Cisco?… > Juniper?… > Windows?… > MacOS?… > Arista?… > iPhones? > Androids? > Windows Phones? > > How far down this list do I have to get before we’ve reached a reasonable > approximation of “the codebase for every host on the internet"? > >>> If we spend the same effort making 204/4 work instead of making IPv6 work, >>> then when we >>> run out of 204/4 space (and we would), we are no better off than when we >>> started. If, >>> instead, we spend that effort enabling IPv6, at the end we have a completed >>> transition >>> with the ability to deprecate IPv4 and make everyone’s lives significantly >>> better. >> >> The market has proven you wrong. We have a squatting problem. > > I’m arguing that 204/4 wouldn’t have eliminated the squatting problem. > >> Your solution : tell people to deploy IPv6 instead of squatting DoD space. > > My solution: tell people to deploy IPv6 instead of continuing to prop up the > mess that is IPv4 and continuing to further degrade the internet with more > and more address sharing hacks. The DOD space squatting for private use is > really, IMHO, one of the least of all of the problems IPv4 is causing in the > world. > >> It does not work, and as time passes, it will work even less. > > How do you figure this? It’s working more and more every day… Every > statistical measure shows IPv6 to be a growing fraction of internet traffic. > >> For the first orgs who squatted DoD space, it was a bold move. They kept in >> under wraps as much as they could. But now, unfortunately, is has become OK >> to do because "everyone else does it, why not me”. > > Frankly, so what? > >> My solution : give the people what they want, legally. > > That’s an interesting perspective on the subject, but I don’t really buy it. > >> You're telling them to drink fruit juice, but they want booze. No matter >> what you say, they'll keep making moonshine. > > Well, it’s more like I’m saying “Look, we’re out of petroleum and continuing > to use it is destroying the planet. Perhaps solar, wind, hydro, or other > renewables would meet your energy needs?” And you’re saying that we should > just keep supporting their petroleum habit. > >> This is not what you and I wanted, 20 years ago. Owen, the prohibition >> looked like a good idea, but it did not work. > > Phrasing it like prohibition is where you depart from reality. Nobody was > trying to prohibit people from using IPv4 as long as there were IPv4 > addresses available. Now that we’re out, people are getting increasingly > inventive about reusing them. For those that don’t/haven’t adopted IPv6 > capabilities, this situation will continue to get worse and more costly and I > have little sympathy. For those who have deployed IPv6 in their networks and > are still saddled with maintaining compatibility with the remaining IPv4-only > networks, our best hope is continuing education and eventually working to the > point where the few remaining IPv4-only networks simply become irrelevant to > the rest of us. > >> We _do_ have a squatting situation. > > Yeah, not really seeing that as a major problem. Would it be better if there > were no such squatting? Sure. Is it the worst problem created by the lack of > addresses in IPv4? Not by a long shot. > > Does wasting a bunch of development effort making it possible to use > 204.0.0.0/4 just to reduce the squatting problem make any sense at all? Nope… > Not a bit. > > Owen > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any > issues.
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
