In a theoretical scenario where somebody was global benevolent dictator of ipv4 space, even applying a policy which limited block size to a few /14 per ISP, it would be possible to exhaust 240/4* in one week* if they handed out /14 sized pieces to every existing last mile LTE network operator with 5+ million customers globally. It is not a long term solution or even a good medium term solution.
On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 at 16:19, Joe Maimon <jmai...@jmaimon.com> wrote: > Eric, > > I appreciate your willingness to actual consider this rationally. > > Every facet of this debate has been fully aired on this forum (and > others), numerous times. > > Allow me to pick it apart again. Apologies to those who are ad nausem. > > Eric Kuhnke wrote: > > Option A) Spend engineering time and equipment purchases to implement > > 240/4 as unicast globally. At present consumption rates and based on > > the number of entities in ARIN, RIPE, APNIC regions that could > > *immediately* take /18 to /16 sized blocks of it, please quantify > > exactly how many years this amount of "new" IP space you predict to be > > useful before once again reaching ipv4 exhaustion. End result: Problem > > not solved. Thus my analogy of building a sand castle while the tide > > is coming in. > > > > Option B) Spend engineering time and equipment purchases (yes, very > > possibly much more time and more costly) to implement ipv6. > > This is know a false dichotomy. There is no actual reason to believe > that any effort on option A detracts from available effort of option B. > And when you purchase your new gear, or update the software, with its > many many lines of code changes, it is not unreasonable to expect that > at least some might be IPv4 related and that the removal of restriction > on 240/4 would be the more trivial of those. > > Indeed that is exactly what has been happening since the initial > proposals regarding 240/4. To the extent that it is now largely > supported or available across a wide variety of gear, much of it not > even modern in any way. > > Further, presentment of options in this fashion presumes that we have > some ability to control or decide how engineering efforts across the > entirety of the internet should be spent. > > Respectively, amusing and alarming. > > To be clear, the only thing preventing the Internet in freely organizing > its own efforts is the unwillingness of curmudgeons to remove the > reserved status in this particular instance. > > As no-one is requesting that you (or others of this persuasion) lend > their personal efforts, your concern on the budgeting of efforts is out > of place and worse, of dictatorial bend. > > For the sake of argument, ignoring above, presuming our control over the > internet engineering efforts et al. > > Were I to propose to you that 240/4 be utilized only for new or existing > organizations with less than /20 total resources or some other useful > constraint, it would be easy to see that 240/4 would last a very long > time and potentially have quite a significant impact. > > Earlier in this thread I contrasted a reduction from 12 to 1 of ip > address consumption per new customer, depending on the practices > employed by the service provider. As you can see, consumption rate is > actually quite flexible, even now, today. > > So the answer to your question is it depends how freely it is handed > out. Certainly not very long if it is business as usual prior to runout. > Potentially much longer if not. > > And in a nod to your concern over effort expenditure, but even more so, > conscious of 240/4 being the 32bit space last big easy gasp, I would be > a strong proponent that it NOT be. > > However, even if it were, what exactly are we saving it for, if not for > use by those who need it? > > Or is it to be a hedge over some eventuality where IPv6 has failed to > the point of abandonment? I might actually respect that position, even > as I doubt (and fear and hope against) such an eventualities actual > occurrence. > > The more galling aspect of the 240/4 wars is that "it will take too long > and then Ipv6 will be deployed" crowd that managed to stifle it > initially continue to reuse that line again, in essence blase self > perpetuation. > > Its only taking that long because of this attitude. > > Joe > > >
