Hi, Fred:
0) Thank you for a set of references.
1) We cited only one IETF Draft (Wilson, et al.) among them, because
it was the first and only one that clearly stated its limitation
(Section 2. Caveats of Use). More importantly, it was written by three
top APNIC officials. Later efforts on this topic have not introduced
(based on my reading) any more essence to the topic.
2) "... I was there for those discussions, and I'm not sure how to
put it more simply.... ": With your knowledge of the past, you are
uniquely qualified to critique on our work. However, it would be more
expedient for everyone, if you could first read through at least the
Abstract and the Conclusions of the EzIP IETF Draft, before commenting.
This is because EzIP proposal is based on the same general idea as the
references you cited, but with a slight extra step that produced a
series of surprising results. In particular, we took the "Caveats" above
to our hearts before proceeding. So, please put such issues behind you
while reviewing our work. Thanks,
Regards,
Abe (2022-03-14 14:39)
------------------------------ NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 15 Message:
17 Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 21:26:11 -0700 From: Fred Baker
<fredbaker.i...@gmail.com> To: "Abraham Y. Chen" <ayc...@avinta.com>,
William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re:
202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Message-ID:
<79746dec-8c8b-4d6d-b1d6-cb0a0003a...@gmail.com> Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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.
------------------------------
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
