On Mar 12, 2022, at 8:15 AM, Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com> wrote: > > 2) On the other hand, there was a recent APNIC blog that specifically > reminded us of a fairly formal request for re-designating the 240/4 netblock > back in 2008 (second grey background box). To me, this means whether to > change the 240/4 status is not an issue. The question is whether we can > identify an application that can maximize its impact. > > https://blog.apnic.net/2022/01/19/ip-addressing-in-2021/
I think there might be value in reviewing the discussion of the related Internet Drafts https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-deshpande-intarea-ipaddress-reclassification-03 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-deshpande-intarea-ipaddress-reclassification https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-wilson-class-e https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-fuller-240space The walkaway I had from these discussions was that while changing the definition of the address space would allow RIRs to sell more IPv4 address space for a few weeks (such as happened to APNIC when the last /8's were handed out), there were not enough addresses in the identified pools to solve the address shortage. So it was in the end a fool's errand. If you want to have address space to address the current shortage, you need an addressing architecture with more addresses. I was there for those discussions, and I'm not sure how to put it more simply.
