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

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

[Tore Anderson]

Good morning Arash,

* "Arash Naderpour" 

> 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?

RIPE AP-WG is not the right place to begin this process, the IETF is.

The process would go something like this:

You submit a draft to the IETF to direct IANA to do something with with
240/3, e.g., reclassify it as regular unicast IPv4 address space that
may be distributed to the RIRs. You'll then need to gain consensus for
your draft and have it published as an RFC.

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
per RIR, that is. The initial and biggest IANA->RIR trance would happen
no later than six months after your RFC was published. (If you're not
happy with that you'd need to seek global consensus between the five RIR
communities to change the «Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4
Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA» policy.)

The RIPE NCC would add any address space received from the IANA in this
manner to the so-called «last /8» pool. So assuming you've already
received your final /22 under the current policy but want one or more
additional allocations from 240/3, you'll at this point need to return
to the RIPE AP-WG with a proposal to change the so-called «last /8»
policy into something else that would facilitate that.

Assuming you manage all of the above, all that remains in order to make
240/3 usable on the public Internet is to convince all the operating
system/device/router vendors in the world to develop and release
software/firmware updates to make 240/3 usable, and then of course to
convince every network operator and end-user on the Internet to
download and install these patches. Devices/software no longer being
supported by the manufacturer would probably need to be replaced
outright.

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 and that your efforts would be much better spent
on IPv6. With IPv6, the process is already underway and most of the
above steps have already been completed, and at the end of that process
we're actually covered for the rest of our lifetimes and beyond.

Tore

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

[Arash Naderpour]

>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, 

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?

Regards,

Arash

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

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016, NTX NOC wrote:


Not correct. My opinion is that all IPs space should be completely free
for all members. It's like letters in the alphabet. You should not pay
for letters, you should not pay for your unique name+surname (symbols
that allow to identify you like IP address numbers).

So to allow progress to come in we need to use abilities, that we have,
reasonably. And here I asked about reserved IPv4 space.

I am here in this discussions because we try to help people to get IP
space easy and faster. And I am show here that there a lot of space that
could be used.


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.


We have run out of "letters" to use. The answer to the problem with "we've 
run out of letters" is to deploy IPv6. It's unfortunate that ISPs in your 
market aren't interested in Ipv6 deployment, but it's the only answer to 
your question.


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

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

[Sergey]

You have already been pointed at: https://version6.ru/isp.

My, perhaps too optimistic prognosis, is that we'll have IPv6 as a 
mainstream IP protocol by 2018. The figures of the current growth make 
me believe in this.


On 06/13/16 20:04, NTX NOC wrote:

Agree,

Almost in Russia, very big country with a lot of ISPs - I can't find any
big home ISP who gives IPv6 by default.
Most of ISPs get there Ipv6 blocks and play with it. But it's not so
good for customers. ISPs prefer still to get IPv4 blocks in additional
to the space they have but not to switch to IPv6.

IPv6 will grow very slow in additional with IPv4.
So those protocols will live together for long-long time and we need to
spend some time for IPv4 as well.


Yuri

On 12.06.2016 18:30, Arash Naderpour wrote:

As an example in Iran there is only one exit point (AS12880 and AS48159
belongs to one organization) from country to global carriers controlled
by government and as they have no LI platform yet on IPv6 there is
simply no IPv6 service availability or possibility for Iranian service
providers.

  


There is no possibility to have a direct peering with a global carrier
and as a result no native IPv6 connectivity yet.  there is also no IXP
in the country.

  


As I said it is not about the difficulty of deploying IPv6, when it is
not lawful and is not available to ISPs they have to stick with IPv4.
Please refer to ripe ncc lab report and see some IPv4 import figures
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/developments-in-ipv4-transfers

  


Arash

P.S last month they started advertising of the IPv6 blocks but no plan
to provide a service to ISPs as yet.

  


*From:*address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] *On
Behalf Of *Sergey
*Sent:* Monday, 13 June 2016 1:10 AM
*To:* address-policy-wg@ripe.net
*Subject:* Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re:
IPv4 reserved space

  


Global carriers provide that connectivity. What's the problem?

On 06/12/16 18:08, Arash Naderpour wrote:

 I was not talking about a global carrier and if they can provide
 IPv6 or not, It was about availability and possibilities to have
 IPv6 connectivity everywhere. There are two different subject.

  


 Arash

  


 *From:*Dominik Nowacki [mailto:domi...@clouvider.co.uk]
 *Sent:* Monday, 13 June 2016 12:42 AM
 *To:* Arash Naderpour 
 
 *Cc:* Alexander Koeppe 
 ; address-policy-wg@ripe.net
 
 *Subject:* Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature***
 Re: IPv4 reserved space

  


 Not available ?

  


 Please name a global carrier that does not support IPv6.

 With Kind Regards,

 Dominik Nowacki
  
 Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and

 Wales. Registered number: 08750969 . Registered
 office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please
 note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also
 the content of email for the purposes of security and staff
 training. This message contains confidential information and is
 intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you
 are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or
 copy this e-mail. Please notify ab...@clouvider.net
  of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if
 you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from
 your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure
 or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
 destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider
 Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability
 for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
 arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is
 required please request a hard-copy version.


 On 12 Jun 2016, at 16:40, Arash Naderpour > wrote:

 And I don't understand why some people think that everyone can
 deploy IPv6,
 it is simply not available everywhere.
 It is not about difficulty, it is about possibility.

 Regards,

 Arash


 -Original Message-
 From: address-policy-wg
 [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On
 Behalf Of Alexander Koeppe
 Sent: Monday, 13 June 2016 12:09 AM
 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net 
 Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature***
 Re: IPv4
 reserved space

 I don't understand how much time and energy is being put into
 the discussion
 about keeping vintage IP 

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

[David Ponzone]

When a resource is scarce, either you define a high-enough price (GSM 
frequencies for instance) or you enforce a policy on how it's used.
The issue is that even if you free 2 or 3 /8 from 240/4 or DoD, that's still a 
scarce resource, given the current growth and the forthcoming IoT invasion.

David Ponzone



> Le 13 juin 2016 à 19:09, NTX NOC  a écrit :
> 
> Not correct. My opinion is that all IPs space should be completely free
> for all members. It's like letters in the alphabet. You should not pay
> for letters, you should not pay for your unique name+surname (symbols
> that allow to identify you like IP address numbers).
> 
> So to allow progress to come in we need to use abilities, that we have,
> reasonably. And here I asked about reserved IPv4 space.
> 
> I am here in this discussions because we try to help people to get IP
> space easy and faster. And I am show here that there a lot of space that
> could be used.
> 
> Yuri
> 
>> On 11.06.2016 22:33, Sergey wrote:
>> Agree with Mikael. This is not a provocative question, but are NTX so
>> worried about this proposal because it would affect their businesses
>> selling and leasing IPv4 space? Their webpage mentions it at the top.
>> 
>> The IP addresses aren't here to sell them. They're to be routed and
>> used. This is just a tool. The IPv6 deployment is the only solution.
> 
> 
> 
> ***
> Le service MailSecure d'IPeva confirme l'absence de virus et de spam dans ce 
> message.
> ***
> 
> 

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

[NTX NOC]

Not correct. My opinion is that all IPs space should be completely free
for all members. It's like letters in the alphabet. You should not pay
for letters, you should not pay for your unique name+surname (symbols
that allow to identify you like IP address numbers).

So to allow progress to come in we need to use abilities, that we have,
reasonably. And here I asked about reserved IPv4 space.

I am here in this discussions because we try to help people to get IP
space easy and faster. And I am show here that there a lot of space that
could be used.

Yuri

On 11.06.2016 22:33, Sergey wrote:
> Agree with Mikael. This is not a provocative question, but are NTX so
> worried about this proposal because it would affect their businesses
> selling and leasing IPv4 space? Their webpage mentions it at the top.
> 
> The IP addresses aren't here to sell them. They're to be routed and
> used. This is just a tool. The IPv6 deployment is the only solution.

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

[NTX NOC]

Agree,

Almost in Russia, very big country with a lot of ISPs - I can't find any
big home ISP who gives IPv6 by default.
Most of ISPs get there Ipv6 blocks and play with it. But it's not so
good for customers. ISPs prefer still to get IPv4 blocks in additional
to the space they have but not to switch to IPv6.

IPv6 will grow very slow in additional with IPv4.
So those protocols will live together for long-long time and we need to
spend some time for IPv4 as well.


Yuri

On 12.06.2016 18:30, Arash Naderpour wrote:
> As an example in Iran there is only one exit point (AS12880 and AS48159
> belongs to one organization) from country to global carriers controlled
> by government and as they have no LI platform yet on IPv6 there is
> simply no IPv6 service availability or possibility for Iranian service
> providers.
> 
>  
> 
> There is no possibility to have a direct peering with a global carrier
> and as a result no native IPv6 connectivity yet.  there is also no IXP
> in the country.
> 
>  
> 
> As I said it is not about the difficulty of deploying IPv6, when it is
> not lawful and is not available to ISPs they have to stick with IPv4.
> Please refer to ripe ncc lab report and see some IPv4 import figures
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/developments-in-ipv4-transfers
> 
>  
> 
> Arash
> 
> P.S last month they started advertising of the IPv6 blocks but no plan
> to provide a service to ISPs as yet.
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Sergey
> *Sent:* Monday, 13 June 2016 1:10 AM
> *To:* address-policy-wg@ripe.net
> *Subject:* Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re:
> IPv4 reserved space
> 
>  
> 
> Global carriers provide that connectivity. What's the problem?
> 
> On 06/12/16 18:08, Arash Naderpour wrote:
> 
> I was not talking about a global carrier and if they can provide
> IPv6 or not, It was about availability and possibilities to have
> IPv6 connectivity everywhere. There are two different subject.
> 
>  
> 
> Arash
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*Dominik Nowacki [mailto:domi...@clouvider.co.uk]
> *Sent:* Monday, 13 June 2016 12:42 AM
> *To:* Arash Naderpour 
> 
> *Cc:* Alexander Koeppe 
> ; address-policy-wg@ripe.net
> 
> *Subject:* Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature***
> Re: IPv4 reserved space
> 
>  
> 
> Not available ?
> 
>  
> 
> Please name a global carrier that does not support IPv6.
> 
> With Kind Regards, 
> 
> Dominik Nowacki 
>  
> Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and
> Wales. Registered number: 08750969 . Registered
> office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please
> note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also
> the content of email for the purposes of security and staff
> training. This message contains confidential information and is
> intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you
> are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or
> copy this e-mail. Please notify ab...@clouvider.net
>  of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if
> you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from
> your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure
> or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
> destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider
> Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability
> for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which
> arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is
> required please request a hard-copy version. 
> 
> 
> On 12 Jun 2016, at 16:40, Arash Naderpour  > wrote:
> 
> And I don't understand why some people think that everyone can
> deploy IPv6,
> it is simply not available everywhere.  
> It is not about difficulty, it is about possibility.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Arash
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: address-policy-wg
> [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On
> Behalf Of Alexander Koeppe
> Sent: Monday, 13 June 2016 12:09 AM
> To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net 
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature***
> Re: IPv4
> reserved space
> 
> I don't understand how much time and energy is being put into
> the discussion
> about keeping vintage IP alive.
> This time and energy would be better off spent in just deploying v6.
> 

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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:14:11PM +0300, NTX NOC wrote:
> About IPv6 - still now in Russia there are no Home ISPs who gives IPv6
> by default to customers. Nobody wants it, nobody needs it.

The "nobody needs it" is a misconception.  Direct your energy there to
make people understand that IPv4 is game over.

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

[NTX NOC]

On 11.06.2016 21:56, Peter Hessler wrote:
> many operating systems hard-code that range as
> invalid network space.

Could you give any OS examples?

I looks to my Juniper docs and see
http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos13.3/topics/topic-map/martian-addresses.html

It's not allowed by default but in one click you can make it work
 240.0.0.0/4 orlonger -- allowed

About IPv6 - still now in Russia there are no Home ISPs who gives IPv6
by default to customers. Nobody wants it, nobody needs it.

Yuri

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

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016, NTX NOC wrote:


What does community thinks about it?


People have looked into this before. It's not feasible, not enough client 
OSes support it.


People even tried this in the IETF, lots of years ago:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-savolainen-indicating-240-addresses-01

IPv4 stone is blead dry. Even if we doubled number of IPv4 addresses by 
means of some unknown magic, it wouldn't buy is any significant amount of 
time.


The solution is IPv6. There is no other way to fix this. Direct your 
energy in that direction.


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

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

[Tom Smyth]

Yuri,

I wouldn't have a difficulty with it :) ...   I dont see a reason why it
wouldnt work ... although you would want everyone who is filtering bogons
manually from their routers and the 240.0.0.0/4 has been considered a bogon
for quite some time...  so alot of people who do rudimentary prefix
filtering on their border routers would have to update to make that range
usable ...  I have heard arguments that some Operating systems have that
range filtered out  and is non configurable...

but I doubt the IPv6 adoption advocates ...  or the IPv4  Sellers would
like that idea too much as it would cause the price per ipv4 to
collapse...


I reckon this question has been asked before and I'm sure someone will
point us to that discussion before...

Hope this helps,



On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:45 PM, NTX NOC  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As we see ISPs and community would like to have more IPv4 space in use.
>
> I would like to ask a question what do people think about other side of
> IPv4 numeration space. Because we have in IPv4 a lot of addresses not in
> use at all but that space could be easy used.
>
> 240.0.0.0/4 Reserved (former Class E network)   RFC 1700
>
> it's 16 */8 networks. More then 256 Millions of routable and never used
> IPv4. 185/8 network has about 6.4M free and total RIPE has about 15M
> free IPv4 and we all say 185/8  will be enough for 2-3 years and rest -
> for some more time. But 256 M Ipv4 space could be enough for years!
>
> Space reserved for future Use. But will the future come to us or not?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1700
>
> Is far as I see routers could easy start to use that IP space. People
> spend a lot of time and money to get some IPs but not to ask IANA to
> allow use this space. Technically it's very easy to start use IPs from
> such ranges.
>
> What does community thinks about it?
>
> Yuri
>
>


-- 
Kindest regards,
Tom Smyth

Mobile: +353 87 6193172
-
PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE YOU PRINT THIS E-MAIL
This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged.
The information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic
transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or by electronic mail
immediately. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, not the
company's  .This email does not constitute either offer or acceptance of
any contractually binding agreement. Such offer or acceptance must be
communicated in
writing. You are requested to carry out your own virus check before opening
any attachment. Thomas Smyth accepts no liability for any loss or damage
which may be caused by malicious software or attachments.

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

[Peter Hessler]

Implementation detail: many operating systems hard-code that range as
invalid network space.  The effort to make it available would be _less_
than getting everyone else in the world upgraded to IPv6.



On 2016 Jun 11 (Sat) at 21:45:03 +0300 (+0300), NTX NOC wrote:
:Dear all,
:
:As we see ISPs and community would like to have more IPv4 space in use.
:
:I would like to ask a question what do people think about other side of
:IPv4 numeration space. Because we have in IPv4 a lot of addresses not in
:use at all but that space could be easy used.
:
:240.0.0.0/4Reserved (former Class E network)   RFC 1700
:
:it's 16 */8 networks. More then 256 Millions of routable and never used
:IPv4. 185/8 network has about 6.4M free and total RIPE has about 15M
:free IPv4 and we all say 185/8  will be enough for 2-3 years and rest -
:for some more time. But 256 M Ipv4 space could be enough for years!
:
:Space reserved for future Use. But will the future come to us or not?
:
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4
:https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1700
:
:Is far as I see routers could easy start to use that IP space. People
:spend a lot of time and money to get some IPs but not to ask IANA to
:allow use this space. Technically it's very easy to start use IPs from
:such ranges.
:
:What does community thinks about it?
:
:Yuri
:

-- 
Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction
listen to weather forecasts and economists?
-- Kelvin Throop III

[address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

[NTX NOC]

Dear all,

As we see ISPs and community would like to have more IPv4 space in use.

I would like to ask a question what do people think about other side of
IPv4 numeration space. Because we have in IPv4 a lot of addresses not in
use at all but that space could be easy used.

240.0.0.0/4 Reserved (former Class E network)   RFC 1700

it's 16 */8 networks. More then 256 Millions of routable and never used
IPv4. 185/8 network has about 6.4M free and total RIPE has about 15M
free IPv4 and we all say 185/8  will be enough for 2-3 years and rest -
for some more time. But 256 M Ipv4 space could be enough for years!

Space reserved for future Use. But will the future come to us or not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1700

Is far as I see routers could easy start to use that IP space. People
spend a lot of time and money to get some IPs but not to ask IANA to
allow use this space. Technically it's very easy to start use IPs from
such ranges.

What does community thinks about it?

Yuri