As I understand it, all purchases since 2008 and all federal networks must
be IPv6 capable. They should already be close to dual stack, and a sale
would just involve getting rid of IPv4.
Unlike typical corporate networks, they should already be 99% there, since
all purchases in the last 11 years were required to be IPv6 capable.
The conference report already posted shows the ipv4 sale was removed in
the conference committee. Of course if they were going to sell, dropping
all available 8's at once is a quick way to crash the v4 marketplace.
Maybe instead of selling them, they should consider leasing them instead
for ongoing revenue. Even if it is only to federal contractors.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Fernando Frediani wrote:
As far as I understand as presented in the URL the text is the one after
passing on both houses and just lacks President's sanction. As it was probably a
proposal drafted by the Department of Defense there is no way to think that
President will refuse it. But I may be missing something on my reading.
Also I think Congress has no much choice to keep all this in the case for some
'strategic reason' until it worths nothing.
I even thought they would wish to keep at least 1 x /8 for them but it doesn't
seem to be the case.
As I said in the first message one very important point othet than the selling
itself is their direction to move to IPv6 despite some beleivers that IPv6 is
dead. Would even them making a wrong decision in this regards ? I don't think
so.
Fernando
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, 11:06 Bill Woodcock, <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
