Christopher, On Feb 13, 2024, at 2:15 PM, Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.au> wrote: > Let's not think about ourselves for a moment, and think about the potential > positive impact that this could bring.
Let’s assume that the class E checks in all IP stacks and application code that do or can connect to the Internet are magically removed (not going to argue feasibility of this) and control of 240/4 is put into the hands of IANA to allocate to the RIRs. Subsequent steps would be: 1. RIRs, following https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/allocation-ipv4-rirs-2012-02-25-en, would request new /8s, and receive those allocations. 2. Entities[*] with pent up demand would submit requests and have those requests filled by the RIRs 3. While more /8s in 240/4 remain, go to step 1 4. Return to status quo ante. In other words, while the IANA free pool is not (again) empty, network operators would be able to get IPv4 address space at a fraction of the market price, and then we’d go back to the way things are now. This suggests the length of time the primary benefit (cheap IPv4 addresses) would be enjoyed depends on RIR allocation policies. ISTR a comment from you earlier suggesting that based on current consumption rates, 240/4 would fulfill needs for 50 years. However, this appears to assume that current “soft landing” (etc) policies would remain in place. Why would you assume that? I would imagine there would be non-trivial pressure from the RIR memberships to return to the pre-runout policy regime which was burning through multiple /8s in months. In particular, I’d think the large scale buyers of address space (as well as IP market speculators) who tend to be the most active in RIR policy forums would jump at the opportunity to get “huge tracts of land” at bargain basement prices again. This doesn’t seem all that positive to me, particularly because it’s temporary since the underlying problem (limited resource, unlimited demand) cannot be addressed. What positive impact do you predict? Thanks, -drc * I’ve purposefully ignored the geopolitical aspect of this here. In reality, I suspect there would be pressure for ‘entities’ to include countries, etc.
