On Jan 26, 2014, at 00:39 , Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl> wrote:
> Hi Owen, > >>> Same question… Will people adjust their filters, (even if only for that >>> prefix)? All over the world? I think 'will adjust their filters for XYZ' is >>> highly optimistic, but let's hope it will work, otherwise the ISPs in the >>> ARIN region will have a problem. (Or maybe not: existing ISPs (for who a >>> /2[4-8] is not a significant amount) might not mind if a new competitors >>> only gets a /2[5-8] that they cannot route globally. But I really hope it >>> doesn't come to that.) >> >> Realistically, anyone depending on IPv4 is going to has a growing problem >> which will only continue to grow. > > Yes, but those last IPv4 addresses are for ISPs who work with IPv6 and need a > little bit of IPv4 to communicate with the legacy world. If they can't even > do that it will be extra hard (impossible?) for them to function. Which is precisely why I authored that particular policy at the time. >>> But more important: which /10 is set aside for this? It is not listed on >>> https://www.arin.net/knowledge/ip_blocks.html >> >> I'm not sure it has been determined yet, let alone announced. > > According to https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html phase > one it should have been done in September 2012: 'IPv4 address space required > for NRPM 4.10, which sets aside a contiguous IPv4 /10 block to facilitate > IPv6 deployment, was reserved and removed from the remaining IPv4 address > pool.' I can't find anything more specific though... OK, then I'm sure it's been determined, but I can't really fault them for not announcing it yet. >>>> Consider the possibility of a policy change which allows the transfer of >>>> smaller blocks (current ARIN policy limits this to /24 minimum, but ARIN >>>> policy is not immutable, we have a policy development process so that >>>> anyone who wants to can start the process of changing it.) >>> >>> I’m well aware of that, but I’ll stick to RIPE policies for now :-) >> >> I admit I'm not familiar with the details of the RIPE policy in this regard. >> Do they allow longer prefixes to be transferred and/or acquired? > > Allow: yes. Anybody doing that for globally routable purposes: no. Although > it can be used for networks that don't need to be in the global BGP table. > >> I will point out that the NA in NANOG mostly refers to the ARIN region. > > ??? No idea what this comment is supposed to mean. You may find this weird, > but since the Internet is actually a global network I do care about what > happens in NA... You made the comment that you would "...stick to RIPE...". I pointed out that ARIN was the RIR of record for most of the territory for which this list is focused. Owen
