> > Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This > won't be easy to accomplish and it will take some time.
It won't ever be 'accomplished' by trying to debate this in the media. On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:05 AM Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.au> wrote: > Hello all, > > [Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on AusNOG, > SANOG and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers to engage in the > discussion on their respective forums.] > > Just to shed some light on the article and our involvement... > > Since September 1981, 240/4 has been reserved for future use, see > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml. > This space has always been reserved for future use and given the global > shortage of available space for new network operators we feel it is > appropriate for this space to be reclassified as Unicast space available > for delegation by IANA/PTI to RIRs on behalf of ICANN. > > At present, the IP space currently available for RIRs to delegate to new > members is minimal, if any at all. The primary goal of our call for change > is to afford smaller players who are wanting to enter the industry the > opportunity to do so without having to shell out the big dollars for space. > Although I do not agree with IP space being treated as a commodity (as this > was not what it was intended to be), those who can afford to purchase space > may do so and those who cannot should be able to obtain space from their > respective RIR without having to wait over a year in some cases just to > obtain space. It's not intended to flood the market with resources that can > be sold off to the highest bidder, and this can very well be a way for > network operators to plan to properly roll out IPv6. At this point in time, > the uptake and implementation of IPv6 is far too low (only 37% according to > https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6) for new networks to deploy IPv6 > single-stack, meaning that we need to continue supporting IPv4 deployments. > > The reallocation of IPv4 space marked as Future Use would not restrict or > inhibit the deployment of IPv6, if anything, in our view it will help the > deployment through allowing these networks to service a greater number of > customers than what a single /24 v4 prefix will allow. Entire regions of an > economy have the potential to be serviced by a single /23 IPv4 prefix when > used in conjunction with IPv6 space. > > Now, some have argued that we should not do anything with IPv4 and simply > let it die out. IPv4 will be around for the foreseeable future and while it > is, we need to allow new operators to continue deploying networks. It is > unfair of us to say "Let's all move towards IPv6 and just let IPv4 die" > however the reality of the situation is that while we continue to treat it > as a commodity and allow v6 uptake to progress as slowly as it is, we need > to continue supporting it v4. Some have also argued that networks use this > space internally within their infrastructure. 240/4 was always marked as > Reserved for Future Use and if network operators elect to squat on reserved > space instead of electing to deploy v6 across their internal networks then > that is an issue they need to resolve, and it should not affect how it is > reallocated. It goes against the bottom-up approach of policy development > by allowing larger network operators to state that this space cannot be > made unicast because they are using it internally (even though it's not > listed in RFC1918), and its reallocation would affect their networks. > > In the APNIC region, there is a policy which only allows for a maximum of > a /23 IPv4 prefix to be allocated/assigned to new members and any more > space required must be acquired through other means. If (as an example) > APNIC were to receive 3 x /8 prefixes from the 240/4 space this would allow > for delegations to be made for approximately the next ~50 years whereas if > policy was changed to allow for delegations up to and including a /22 this > would extend the current pool by well over 20 years, based on current > exhaustion rates and allowing for pool levels to return to pre-2010 levels. > > Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This > won't be easy to accomplish and it will take some time. However, if we do > nothing then nothing will happen. The currently available pool has reached > severe exhaustion levels yet we have a block representing about 6% of the > total possible IP space which may not seem like a lot yet it can go a long > way. > > This call for change is not about making space available for existing > networks. It is about new networks emerging into and on the internet. While > we do work towards IPv6 being the primary addressing method we need to > continue allow those who may not be able to deploy IPv6 to connect to the > internet. > > Regards, > Christopher Hawker > > ------------------------------ > *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris=thesysadmin...@nanog.org> on behalf of > Jay R. Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 13, 2024 5:19 PM > *To:* North American Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> > *Subject:* The Reg does 240/4 > > I know we had a thread on this last month, but I can't remember what it > was titled. > > ElReg has done a civilian-level backgrounder on the 240/4 issue, for anyone > who wants to read and scoff at it. :-) > > https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/09/240_4_ipv4_block_activism/ > > Cheers, > -- jra > > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 > 1274 >
