Hi Christian, The idea to this is to allow new networks to emerge onto the internet, without potentially having to fork out substantial amounts of money.
I am of the view that networks large enough to require more than a /8 v4 for a private network, would be in the position to move towards IPv6-only. Meta has already achieved this (https://engineering.fb.com/2017/01/17/production-engineering/legacy-support-on-ipv6-only-infra/) by rolling out dual-stack on their existing nodes and enabling new nodes as IPv6-only. I cannot think of a bigger waste of resources that have the possibility of being publicly used, than to allocate an additional 16 x /8 to RFC1918 space. The same argument could be had about using larger than a /8 for private networking. Why not use IPv6? Regards, Christopher Hawker ________________________________ From: Christian de Larrinaga <c...@firsthand.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:51 PM To: Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.au> Cc: Denis Fondras <xx...@ledeuns.net>; nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 excuse top posting - I don't see a case for shifting 240/4 into public IP space if it is just going to sustain the rentier sinecures of the existing IPv4 incumbencies. In other words if RIRs don't use it boost new entrants it will just add another knot to the stranglehold we are in vis IPv4. I can see a potential case for shifting it from experimental to private space given the fact that "the rest of us" without public IP space and natted behind CGNATs have taken to use IPv4 for wireguard, containers, zero configs and so on, to tie our various locations, services and applications together within our own private distributed nets and expose our services for public consumption over IPv6. C Christian de Larrinaga Christian Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.au> writes > Hi Denis, > > It will only be burned through if RIR communities change policies to allow > for larger delegations than what is > currently in place. I believe that some level of change is possible whilst > limiting the exhaustion rate, e.g. allowing > for delegations up to a maximum holding of a /22, however we shouldn't go > crazy (for want of a better phrase) > and allow for delegations of a /20, /19 etc. > > If this was only going to give us a potential 1-3 years' worth of space, then > I would agree in saying that it is a waste > of time, would take far too long to make the space usable and wouldn't be > worth it. However, as long as we don't > get greedy, change the maximum allowed delegation to large delegations, and > every Tom/Dick/Harry applying > for a /16 allocation then 240/4 will last us a lengthy amount of time, at > least a few decades. > > Regards, > Christopher Hawker > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris=thesysadmin...@nanog.org> on behalf of Denis > Fondras via NANOG > <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:10 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 > > Le Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 03:24:21PM -0800, David Conrad a écrit : >> 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. >> > > I agree with this. > Yet I am in favor of changing the status of 240/4, just so it can get burned > fast, we stop this endless discussion and can start to deploy IPv6 again. > > Denis -- Christian de Larrinaga
