ARIN has been gutting IPv4 free-pool based policy left and right lately… Other RIRs have not been quite as aggressive, but have done some similar things. This, if for no other reason, makes it a bad idea to suddenly restore RIR IPv4 free pools.
Just my $0.02. I’ve got as little power in the IETF as it’s possible to have, but I admit I do share in the consensus view that the effort spent writing up a plan for 240/4 would be better invested in deploying IPv6. Owen > On Jan 11, 2024, at 13:05, Matthew Petach <mpet...@netflight.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 9:29 AM Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc > <mailto: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. > > > Hi Tom, > > I think that's a bit of an unfair categorization--we can't look at > pre-exhaustion demand numbers and extrapolate to post-exhaustion allocations, > given the difference in allocation policies pre-exhaustion versus > post-exhaustion. > > If we limited ISPs to a single /22 of post-exhaustion space, with a minimum 1 > year waiting period to come back to request an additional /22, 240/4 would > last a good long time. > That aligns with ARIN's current NPRM initial allocation, post-exhaustion: > 4.2.2. Initial Allocation to ISPs > All ISP organizations without direct assignments or allocations from ARIN > qualify for an initial allocation of up to a /22, subject to ARIN’s minimum > allocation size. > > > If you already *have* existing IPv4 space, I would propose you be ineligible > to apply to ARIN for space from within 240/4; you already have a functioning > business with some amount of IPv4 space, and can look at either trying to be > more efficient with what you have (more CG-NAT, renumber off public space for > internal links, etc.), or participating in the open market for IPv4 space > transfers. > > 240/4 can be made to last a very long time, if we apply post-exhaustion > rules, rather than allowing pre-exhaustion demand curves to continue forward. > > >>> 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 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. > > The key difference is that IPv6-only doesn't (currently) work, > transition/translation mechanisms require an entity to have at least *some* > IPv4 addresses to anchor their transition/translation mechanisms to, and > we've created a situation that presents significant barriers to entry for new > applicants that existing entities don't face. At some point in the near > future, I suspect governments will begin to look at the current ISP > environment as anti-competitive if we don't adjust our stance to ensure a > fair and level playing field for new entrants as well as existing incumbent > providers. I think we're going to need to ensure that new applicants are > able to get their initial allocation of space for the foreseeable future in > order to fend off increasing regulatory pressure. Adding space from 240/4 to > the initial-allocations-only pool would help ensure that. > > >> >> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 5:54 AM Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.au >> <mailto: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 > > > Thanks! > > Matt >
