I did a bit of looking. The language did appear in House Bill 2500, but
that bill has ONLY passed the House. Those that track bills give it only
a 3 percent chance of passage. That language never made it to passage.
Therefore, it looks like it is going nowhere. The only US federal
government block I can see that might go on sale easily is 56/8 run by the
US Post Office. As an independent agency of the Federal Government they
might be able to sell all or part of it without congress approving it.
Also, everyone knows they have a debt, and congress would likely not
object to a sale of all or part of it to pay some of that debt off. They
do not appear to be using any of it beyond the first few /24's on the open
internet. The rest might be used on their mail machines internally, but
since those run Linux, they could easily use V6 instead. In fact, they
should be already running v6 due to the 2008 EOP mandate.
However, I do know of internal networks already running in the upper half
of 56/8. As for people "making" those people on these addresses move, we
know that noone but the operators of those networks can require movement.
We also know that many larger networks use a lot of cloud services, and
these services would also be a likely consumer of these newly available
addresses. When the two intersect, and they cannot get to their cloud
service, because the cloud address is being used internally, that is when
a renumber might be forced. Since these services often have a lot of A
records, such an issue will be quite hard to track down, as it will not
always fail.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, [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.
