Apparently it was in the House Bill, but was removed in the Senate version, and
didn’t make it through conference.
-Bill
> On Dec 19, 2019, at 14:49, [email protected] wrote:
>
> I thought the budget bill already passed. Did it contain the IPv4 sell
> provisions or not? Anyone know what the bill number was, and if it was
> signed by the President?
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Ca By wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 4:03 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I see this as an instant headache for a lot of larger network operators
>> who are using portions of this DOD space like RFC1918 addresses. Once
>> these addresses become public, those operators are going to have to
>> renumber that space. That is 16.9 million hosts per block used.
>>
>> Maybe these operators will take the lead of the DOD and move those hosts
>> to IPv6 instead, where there is plenty of space. Since the space is
>> already not directly addressable, it would simply be a matter of
>> changing
>> the existing NAT to use v6 as its input, or adding a v6 address to their
>> proxy servers.
>> Or maybe nobody moves
>> And the USG has no leverage to make them move
>> And the value of said addresses is impaired.
>> Also, the language requiring the DoD to move has been removed from the bill.
>> Likely because relevant budget organs of government explained how it is
>> fiscally impossible to get to ipv6 for them. You can search this archive for
>> one M. Py for a template of what they may say about running old systems.
>> I am sure the DoD contractor lobbyist and maybe even address broker lobbyist
>> get those provisions added back, as there is tax payer money to be made
>>
>> With all this space likely coming to the market soon, now is the time to
>> adopt the proposal to require v6 use before allowing anyone to receive
>> this v4 space. While this will help the v4 supply, DOD may find the
>> price
>> collapsed at the end of the 10 year period if IPv6 uptake increases due
>> to
>> DOD and other use of IPv6 instead of IPv4.
>>
>> As far as those who suggest the IPv4 space problem is solved, based on
>> use
>> rates before runout, this may buy us 2 or 3 years. However the DOD has
>> 10
>> years to sell, and by then, the IPv4 market may already be collapsed to
>> near zero levels depending upon the uptake of IPv6, which will be lead
>> by
>> DOD purchases of IPv6 only equipment to follow the mandate.
>>
>> Albert Erdmann
>> Network Administrator
>> Paradise On Line Inc.
>>
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Fernando Frediani wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I believe these are relevant news to this list
>> >
>> >
>> https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1790/text#toc-H3733C370A69A4095B62B213B52530170
>> >
>> > "IPv6 strategy made it into NDAA 2020, requiring DOD to sell 13 x /8s
>> > (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 10 years after the date of the
>> enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall sell all of the IPv4
>> addresses described in
>> > subsection (b) at fair market value."
>> >
>> > Finally is happening.
>> > I imagined that one day they would return something, but decided to
>> sell. However, looking at the good side, this makes all this wasted space
>> to become utilized.
>> >
>> > A few questions that arise are: how will this selling process happen,
>> if directly, through brokers, if there will be any mechanism to
>> distribute this selling among
>> > each one of all 5 RIRs or if it will be opened in the model "first
>> come, first served"
>> >
>> > And before something says, I don't believe this will make any big
>> difference to IPv6 implementation to advance or delay it significantly.
>> > Even talking about more than 200 million IPv4 addresses, I don't
>> think this will change much this scenario if they are put directly at end
>> users disposition.
>> >
>> > Finally, an important detail to highlight in the report is: "(D) The
>> plan of the Secretary to transition all Department addresses to IPv6."
>> >
>> > Let's see who will be the big buyers and how will this affect the
>> IPv4 value for the next years.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Fernando Frediani
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
