> > Thought that 12 month argument was purest BS in light of all the > events since 2011. We have been "out" of IPv4 space for many years > now, and there is a functioning market for IPv4 space that seems to be > serving the purpose. 240/4 is only marginally useful today, but useful > it is. >
Sure, because even though direct allocations from RIRs are exhausted, there are still TONS of non-RFC1918 IPv4 addresses out there not actually being used at all. We all know that years ago it wasn't that difficult to get way more than you needed, and there was never any real pressure or incentive to give anything back. Once exhaustion got on people's radars, hoarding begin in earnest because it wasn't difficult to predict that there would prob be a way to monetize it later. A former employer of mine is still sitting on around a /12 worth that we had accumulated through some acquisitions. We never NEEDED more than a /19. I left more than a decade ago, and he's been subsidizing the long , slow decline of the primary business by selling off chunks of that space here and there. Certainly not a unique circumstance. We know there are companies out there that categorize IP addresses as an appreciable investment asset. The fact that $/IP peaked about 3 years ago, and has steadily been in decline since is instructive that demand for v4 space is decreasing, which tends to toss a wrench in the story that 240/4 is *needed*. There are rumblings far outside the realm of the ietf. > AFAIK, at this point IANA will only change the designation of a V4 block if the IETF process decides they should. So I'm not sure why other rumblings matter all that much. > Instead, bigcos like google and amazon have been able to squat on > 240/4 and take advantage of it for 5+ years now. I do kind of hope > others are using it up in the same ways they are. > I know a lot of places that are not those companies that are using 240/4 internally. Some are many orders of magnitude smaller. I would disagree with it being referred to as 'squatting'. Today, nobody's usage of 240/4 internally impacts anyone else. On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 12:37 PM Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 12:26 PM Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: > > > > Christopher- > > > >> Reclassifying this space, would add 10+ years onto the free pool for > each RIR. Looking at the APNIC free pool, I would estimate there is about > 1/6th of a /8 pool available for delegation, another 1/6th reserved. > Reclassification would see available pool volumes return to pre-2010 levels. > > > > > > Citing Nick Hilliard from another reply, this is an incorrect statement. > > > >> on this point: prior to RIR depletion, the annual global run-rate on /8s > >> measured by IANA was ~13 per annum. So that suggests that 240/4 would > >> provide a little more than 1Y of consumption, assuming no demand > >> back-pressure, which seems an unlikely assumption. > > > > > >> I share Dave's views, I would like to see 240/4 reclassified as unicast > space and 2 x /8s delegated to each RIR with the /8s for AFRINIC to be held > until their issues have been resolved. > > > > > > This has been discussed at great length at IETF. The consensus on the > question has been consistent for many years now; doing work to free up > 12-ish months of space doesn't make much sense > > Thought that 12 month argument was purest BS in light of all the > events since 2011. We have been "out" of IPv4 space for many years > now, and there is a functioning market for IPv4 space that seems to be > serving the purpose. 240/4 is only marginally useful today, but useful > it is. > > > when IPv6 exists, along with plenty of transition/translation > mechanisms. Unless someone is able to present new arguments that change the > current consensus, it's not going to happen. > > Instead, bigcos like google and amazon have been able to squat on > 240/4 and take advantage of it for 5+ years now. I do kind of hope > others are using it up in the same ways they are. > > Consensus, no. Just the few, like my team, that looked clearly at the > future internet's needs getting shouted down by those in power over > there. We cited many other arguments in favor of opening it up. There > are rumblings far outside the realm of the ietf. > > I was once naive enough to consider the internet a vast, global, > shared, and beloved space with resources that needed to be conserved > and spread to and for all mankind. And while I still do feel that, our > existing bureaucracies and gatekeepers have seemingly infinite power > to say no, to even simple improvements to how the internet could work. > > There is no reason whatsoever for 240/4 to remain "reserved". There > are plausible debates as to how it should be used, but rfc1918-style > only benefits the few. > > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 5:54 AM Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.au> > wrote: > >> > >> There really is no reason for 240/4 to remain "reserved". I share > Dave's views, I would like to see 240/4 reclassified as unicast space and 2 > x /8s delegated to each RIR with the /8s for AFRINIC to be held until their > issues have been resolved. > >> > >> Reclassifying this space, would add 10+ years onto the free pool for > each RIR. Looking at the APNIC free pool, I would estimate there is about > 1/6th of a /8 pool available for delegation, another 1/6th reserved. > Reclassification would see available pool volumes return to pre-2010 levels. > >> > >> https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/ipv4-exhaustion/ > >> > >> In the IETF draft that was co-authored by Dave as part of the IPv4 > Unicast Extensions Project, a very strong case was presented to convert > this space. > >> > >> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240-00.html > >> > >> Regards, > >> Christopher Hawker > >> > >> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 20:40, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 11:06 AM Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain > >>> >> assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled > with > >>> >> a header that defines .. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Of course correct. It really depends on the vendor / software / > versions in an environment. A lot of vendors removed that years ago, > because frankly a lot of large networks have been using 240/4 as pseudo > RFC1918 for years. Others have worked with smaller vendors and open source > projects to do the same. > >>> > > >>> > It's consistently a topic in the debates about 240/4 > reclassification. > >>> > >>> There's debates still? I gave up. After making 240/4 and 0/8 work > >>> across all of linux and BSD and all the daemons besides bird (which > >>> refused the patch , I took so much flack that I decided I would just > >>> work on other things. So much of that flack was BS - like if you kill > >>> the checks in the OS the world will end - that didn't happen. Linux > >>> has had these two address ranges just work for over 5 years now. > >>> > >>> 240/4 is intensely routable and actually used in routers along hops > >>> inside multiple networks today, but less so as a destination. > >>> > >>> I would really like, one day, to see it move from reserved to unicast > >>> status, officially. I would have loved it if 0/8 was used by a space > >>> RIR, behind CGNAT, for starters, but with a plan towards making it > >>> routable. I am not holding my breath. > >>> > >>> The principal accomplishment of the whole unicast extensions project > >>> was to save a nanosecond across all the servers in the world on every > >>> packet by killing the useless 0/8 check. That patch paid for itself > >>> the first weekend after that linux kernel deployed. It is the > >>> simplest, most elegant, and most controversial patch I have ever > >>> written. > >>> > >>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20430096 > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:45 AM Michael Butler < > i...@protected-networks.net> wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> On 1/10/24 10:12, Tom Beecher wrote: > >>> >> > Karim- > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Please be cautious about this advice, and understand the full > context. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > 240/4 is still classified as RESERVED space. While you would > certainly > >>> >> > be able to use it on internal networks if your equipment supports > it, > >>> >> > you cannot use it as publicly routable space. There have been many > >>> >> > proposals over the years to reclassify 240/4, but that has not > happened, > >>> >> > and is unlikely to at any point in the foreseeable future. > >>> >> > >>> >> While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in a private > >>> >> setting, using them might also be .. a challenge. > >>> >> > >>> >> There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain > >>> >> assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled > with > >>> >> a header that defines .. > >>> >> > >>> >> #define IN_BADCLASS(i) (((in_addr_t)(i) & 0xf0000000) == > 0xf0000000) > >>> >> > >>> >> Michael > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 40 years of net history, a couple songs: > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E > >>> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos > > > > -- > 40 years of net history, a couple songs: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos >
