On Jan 25, 2014, at 23:56 , Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl> wrote:
> Hi Owen, > > Op 26 jan. 2014, om 05:36 heeft Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> het volgende > geschreven: > >> On Jan 25, 2014, at 13:59 , Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>>> […] But, when that happens ARIN will only have the 'Dedicated IPv4 block >>>> to facilitate IPv6 Deployment' [1] left, and it will use 'a minimum size >>>> allocation of /28 and a maximum size allocation of /24' for that block. >>>> The block is meant for things like dual stacked DNS servers, NAT64 and >>>> other IPv6 deployments where a bit of IPv4 is still necessary. >>> >>> I wonder how reachable those systems will be... Will people adjust their >>> filters, or will most usage of this block (and thereby all new entrants in >>> the ISP market in the ARIN region) just be doomed? >> >> That's actually may not be the best question. That block will come from >> within a specific prefix and I suspect that ISPs and the like will adjust >> their filters FOR THAT PREFIX. > > Same question… Will people adjust their filters, (even if only for that > prefix)? All over the world? I think 'will adjust their filters for XYZ' is > highly optimistic, but let's hope it will work, otherwise the ISPs in the > ARIN region will have a problem. (Or maybe not: existing ISPs (for who a > /2[4-8] is not a significant amount) might not mind if a new competitors only > gets a /2[5-8] that they cannot route globally. But I really hope it doesn't > come to that.) > Realistically, anyone depending on IPv4 is going to has a growing problem which will only continue to grow. > But more important: which /10 is set aside for this? It is not listed on > https://www.arin.net/knowledge/ip_blocks.html I'm not sure it has been determined yet, let alone announced. > >> Consider the possibility of a policy change which allows the transfer of >> smaller blocks (current ARIN policy limits this to /24 minimum, but ARIN >> policy is not immutable, we have a policy development process so that anyone >> who wants to can start the process of changing it.) > > I’m well aware of that, but I’ll stick to RIPE policies for now :-) I admit I'm not familiar with the details of the RIPE policy in this regard. Do they allow longer prefixes to be transferred and/or acquired? I will point out that the NA in NANOG mostly refers to the ARIN region. Owen
