Re: [address-policy-wg] [apwg-chairs] Create FAQ? (was: Re: IPv4 reserved space)

[Sander Steffann]

> A little while ago, Marla Azinger and I wrote this document to describe some
> of the issues:
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6319.txt

Thanks Leo!
Sander 

Re: [address-policy-wg] [apwg-chairs] Create FAQ? (was: Re: IPv4 reserved space)

[Leo Vegoda]

Sander Steffann wrote:

[...]

> > Is there any possibility of creating a FAQ?   There are a bunch of
> > issues which are coming up repeatedly, of which this is one.
> 
> I agree. There are many things that the people who have been involved 
> for a long time know, but which might not be obvious for others. I'll see 
> if I can put something together on ipv6guide.net.

A little while ago, Marla Azinger and I wrote this document to describe some
of the issues:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6319.txt

Regards,

Leo Vegoda


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] [apwg-chairs] Create FAQ? (was: Re: IPv4 reserved space)

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Nick,

> Is there any possibility of creating a FAQ?   There are a bunch of
> issues which are coming up repeatedly, of which this is one.

I agree. There are many things that the people who have been involved for a 
long time know, but which might not be obvious for others. I'll see if I can 
put something together on ipv6guide.net.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

[address-policy-wg] Create FAQ? (was: Re: IPv4 reserved space)

[Nick Hilliard]

Tore Anderson wrote:
> If by some miracle you would be able to pull it all off, keep in mind
> that the ~107M addresses gained by the RIPE NCC would all be used up
> within two years if we return to the pre-depletion allocation policy
> and consumption rate. Ask yourself: «then what?»
> 
> Maybe you can now see why folks are telling you that this would be a
> colossal waste of time 

APWG Chairs,

Is there any possibility of creating a FAQ?   There are a bunch of
issues which are coming up repeatedly, of which this is one.

Nick

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:55:12AM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
> >Well, using 240/3 isn't something that realistic. It is a lot easier to
> deply IPv6 than to get 240/3 working for any significant amount of users.
> 
> Some may prefer easier ways (which is not that much easy to others) and some
> may not, 

240/3 is not going to be easy.  *Every* device out there would need to be 
changed (or at least *checked*) to ensure that it understands that these
addresse are not special and can be used as normal unicast space.

I could imagine that LI equipment that does not handle IPv6 will not
handle Class E space either...


> My question is that is this working group the right place to discuss about
> the 240/3 or it should be done in higher level like between RIRs or IANA?

It has been said before that 240/3 needs to be designated as unicast address
space in the IETF first, then IANA could distribute to the RIRs.

Pointers to the relevant drafts have been given.

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

[Tore Anderson]

* Mikael Abrahamsson 

> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Tore Anderson wrote:
> 
> > The /3 would then within six months be split up into five equal parts
> > and be distributed to each RIR over a period of a few years. ~6.4 /8s  
> 
> Well, it's only 16 /8s, so 3.2 /8s per RIR.

Nnngh. Thanks David and Mikael. (This is why you should never write
e-mails while not under the influence of coffee, kids.)

Anyway this part needs corrections (emphasised with **) too:

> If by some miracle you would be able to pull it all off, keep in mind
> that the **~54M** addresses gained by the RIPE NCC would all be used
> up within **one year** if we return to the pre-depletion allocation
> policy and consumption rate. Ask yourself: «then what?»

I'm assuming here an allocation rate of ~0.3 /8s per month, cf.
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/global-patterns-in-ipv4-allocation-statistics

Probably this estimate is way too low though, due to the unmet demand
that has been building up in the LIRs over the course of the last four
years. My guess is that we'd easily manage to fully deplete the first
240/4 IANA->RIR tranche (containing a /7) before the six months have
passed before the second tranche (containing a /8) comes, and so on
until the IANA recovered IPv4 pool is all gone.

Tore

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Tore Anderson wrote:


The /3 would then within six months be split up into five equal parts
and be distributed to each RIR over a period of a few years. ~6.4 /8s


Well, it's only 16 /8s, so 3.2 /8s per RIR.

Tore, great email summing up the problems with this proposal.

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se