Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Michael Thomas]

On 2/17/24 10:19 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
Mike, it’s true that Google used to be a lot less strict on IPv4 email 
than IPv6, but they want SPF and /or DKIM on everything now, so it’s 
mostly the same. There is less reputation data available for IPv6 and 
server reputation is a harder problem in IPv6, but reputation systems 
are becoming less relevant.


I kind of get the impression that once you get to aggregates at the 
domain level like DKIM or SPF, addresses as a reputation vehicle don't 
much figure into decision making. But what happens under the hood at 
major mailbox providers is maddeningly opaque so who really knows? It 
would be nice if MAAWG published a best practices or something like that 
to outline what is actually happening in live deployments.


Mike

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

Mike, it’s true that Google used to be a lot less strict on IPv4 email than 
IPv6, but they want SPF and /or DKIM on everything now, so it’s mostly the 
same. There is less reputation data available for IPv6 and server reputation is 
a harder problem in IPv6, but reputation systems are becoming less relevant. 

YMMV, but if your mail server is properly configured for SPF and DKIM, you 
shouldn’t have any difference in SMTP experience with Google for either 
protocol. 

Owen


> On Feb 16, 2024, at 07:20, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> 
> "Does any IPv6 enabled ISP provide PTR records for mail servers?"
> 
> I think people will conflate doing so at ISP-scale and doing so at 
> residential hobbiyst scale (and everything in between). One would expect 
> differences in outcomes of attempting PTR records in DIA vs. broadband.
> 
> "How does Google handle mail from an IPv6 server?"
> 
> A few people have posted that it works for them, but unless it has changed 
> recently, per conversations on the mailop mailing list, Google does not treat 
> IPv6 and IPv4 mail the same and that causes non-null issues.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> 
> From: "Stephen Satchell" 
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 8:25:03 PM
> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
> 
> On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
> > The best option is what is happening right now:  you can’t get new IPv4
> > addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6.  The free market
> >   is solving the problem right now.  Another solution isn’t needed.
> 
> Really?  How many mail servers are up on IPv6?  How many legacy mail
> clients can handle IPv6?  How many MTA software packages can handle IPv6
> today "right out of the box" without specific configuration?
> 
> Does any IPv6 enabled ISP provide PTR records for mail servers?
> 
> How does Google handle mail from an IPv6 server?
> 
> The Internet is not just the Web.
> 

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[John Levine]

It appears that Mike Hammett  said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>" Does any IPv6 enabled ISP provide PTR records for mail servers?" 
>
>
>I think people will conflate doing so at ISP-scale and doing so at residential 
>hobbiyst scale (and everything in between). One would
>expect differences in outcomes of attempting PTR records in DIA vs. broadband. 

Most consumer ISPs block port 25 so rDNS would be the least of your problems 
trying to run a home mail server.

>"How does Google handle mail from an IPv6 server?" 
>
>A few people have posted that it works for them, but unless it has changed 
>recently, per conversations on the mailop mailing list,
>Google does not treat IPv6 and IPv4 mail the same and that causes non-null 
>issues. 

As has been widely reported, Google has recently tightened up authentication 
requirements so
v4 and v6 are now pretty similar.

They won't accept v6 mail that isn't authenticated with SPF or DKIM
but honestly, if you can't figure out how to publish an SPF record you
shouldn't try to run a mail server.

R's,
John

RE: The Reg does 240/4

[Howard, Lee via NANOG]

It seems we’re the marketplace of record.

We do have some private transactions, that is, sales that take place outside of 
our marketplace and therefore don’t appear on the prior-sales page. That’s 
generally for /16 or larger, where one or both parties want custom terms that 
differ from our standard Terms of Use.

It’s true that prices for /16 and larger have held steadier than smaller 
blocks. My guess is that there has been a lot more supply of smaller blocks 
than /16+, driving prices down for the smaller blocks. Supply for /16s and 
larger is fine, but not enormous. I don’t assume that prices will remain the 
same.

So, what about 240/4?  The IPv4 market moves about 40 million addresses per 
year. A /4 is 268 million addresses, so if that supply became available (IETF 
telling IANA to distribute it to the RIRs, I assume) it would definitely affect 
the market for a long time. The RIRs would have to look at their 
post-exhaustion policies and figure out whether they still applied, or if 
pre-exhaustion policies should be used. I don’t have a strong opinion on this, 
and give credit to the authors of the proposal for working to identify any 
places where 240/4 would not work.

I still think the Internet works better when everyone uses the same protocol, 
so everyone should deploy IPv6. At this point, the consumer electronics and 
corporate IT sectors are the major holdouts. There are still ISPs and web sites 
that don’t have IPv6, but it’s no longer reasonable to assert that those are 
failures as a group, IMHO.


Lee Howard | Senior Vice President, IPv4.Global
[Inline image]

t: 646.651.1950
email: leehow...@hilcostreambank.com<mailto:leehow...@hilcostreambank.com>
web: www.ipv4.global<http://www.ipv4.global/>
twitter: twitter.com/ipv4g<https://twitter.com/ipv4g/>





From: NANOG  On Behalf 
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 10:28 AM
To: Tom Beecher 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links 
and attachments.


Evidence to support Tom's statement:

https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com


From: "Tom Beecher" mailto:beec...@beecher.cc>>
To: "Brian Knight" mailto:m...@knight-networks.com>>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 5:31:42 PM
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
$/IPv4 address peaked in 2021, and has been declining since.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 16:05 Brian Knight via NANOG 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
On 2024-02-15 13:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote:
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
>
>   The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
>   Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.
>
> If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
> within a month.

As others have noted, and to paraphrase a long-ago quote from this
mailing list, I'm sure all of Netflix's competitors hope Netflix does
that.

I remain hopeful that the climbing price of unique, available IPv4
addresses eventually forces migration to v6. From my armchair, only
through economics will this situation will be resolved.

> --lyndon

-Brian

RE: The Reg does 240/4

[Brotman, Alex via NANOG]

We (comcast.net) have been sending/receiving via IPv6 since 2012 or so.  We do 
have PTR records for our outbound IPv6 addresses, and expect them for inbound 
IPv6 as well.Keeping in mind that a huge portion of inbound mail is 
bulk/commercial and they have thus far largely avoided IPv6, Inbound IPv6 is 
about 5% of traffic.  Outbound IPv6 is about 40% of traffic.  I’m not sharing 
mail submissions from users as many (nearly all?) of our users have IPv6 and 
that would skew the numbers, and may not be relevant to this discussion.

--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 10:20 AM
To: l...@satchell.net
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

"Does any IPv6 enabled ISP provide PTR records for mail servers?"

I think people will conflate doing so at ISP-scale and doing so at residential 
hobbiyst scale (and everything in between). One would expect differences in 
outcomes of attempting PTR records in DIA vs. broadband.

"How does Google handle mail from an IPv6 server?"

A few people have posted that it works for them, but unless it has changed 
recently, per conversations on the mailop mailing list, Google does not treat 
IPv6 and IPv4 mail the same and that causes non-null issues.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.ics-il.com__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Adj7UyXOfg2bkj9fl_CbY2Z7kBhqQzqvduQFbfMITlcG2Om1zcWSj6zljATvnM2kFdxDQer3FJBfv7AFbA$>

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.midwest-ix.com__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Adj7UyXOfg2bkj9fl_CbY2Z7kBhqQzqvduQFbfMITlcG2Om1zcWSj6zljATvnM2kFdxDQer3FJCDd4cxfw$>


From: "Stephen Satchell" mailto:l...@satchell.net>>
To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 8:25:03 PM
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
> The best option is what is happening right now:  you can’t get new IPv4
> addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6.  The free market
>   is solving the problem right now.  Another solution isn’t needed.

Really?  How many mail servers are up on IPv6?  How many legacy mail
clients can handle IPv6?  How many MTA software packages can handle IPv6
today "right out of the box" without specific configuration?

Does any IPv6 enabled ISP provide PTR records for mail servers?

How does Google handle mail from an IPv6 server?

The Internet is not just the Web.

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Mike Hammett]

Evidence to support Tom's statement: 

https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Tom Beecher"  
To: "Brian Knight"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 5:31:42 PM 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 




$/IPv4 address peaked in 2021, and has been declining since. 





On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 16:05 Brian Knight via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org > wrote: 


On 2024-02-15 13:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote: 
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: 
> 
> The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is 
> Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4. 
> 
> If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere* 
> within a month. 

As others have noted, and to paraphrase a long-ago quote from this 
mailing list, I'm sure all of Netflix's competitors hope Netflix does 
that. 

I remain hopeful that the climbing price of unique, available IPv4 
addresses eventually forces migration to v6. From my armchair, only 
through economics will this situation will be resolved. 

> --lyndon 

-Brian 

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christian de Larrinaga via NANOG]

inline

Christopher Hawker  writes:

> 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.

That would then be using IPv6 with IPv4 transition translation etc at the
ingress/egress to your new shiny ISP. 

>
> 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.

Any network of any size can justify using IPv6.

You will though face some old telco monopolistic / Tier 1 incumbencies
who find their benefit in networking is to be as anti social to fellow
networks as their lack of imagination on the value of connectivity can
facilitate and regret they can't charge time and distance but very happy
to charge on ingress and egress. 

>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.
>

I expect it would take many years for 240/4 to have universal
routing  as a public resource. That maybe the first challenge to get it through 
IETF

The other challenge is that the block is currently marked experimental
and really if you want to make a plan to use all or part of that
block. Then that should be for experimental purposes.

Just saying it is now public isn't really an innovation. 

Also once reallocated its lost to future experimental uses. 

> The same argument could be had about using larger than a /8 for private 
> networking. Why not use IPv6?
>

well now you are speaking hexadecimal! 

> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker


best

Christian 
> -
> From: Christian de Larrinaga 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:51 PM
> To: Christopher Hawker 
> Cc: Denis Fondras ; 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  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  on behalf of 
>> Denis Fondras via NANOG
>> 
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:10 PM
>> To: 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 

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Mike Hammett]

" Does any IPv6 enabled ISP provide PTR records for mail servers?" 


I think people will conflate doing so at ISP-scale and doing so at residential 
hobbiyst scale (and everything in between). One would expect differences in 
outcomes of attempting PTR records in DIA vs. broadband. 



"How does Google handle mail from an IPv6 server?" 


A few people have posted that it works for them, but unless it has changed 
recently, per conversations on the mailop mailing list, Google does not treat 
IPv6 and IPv4 mail the same and that causes non-null issues. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Stephen Satchell"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 8:25:03 PM 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 

On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote: 
> The best option is what is happening right now: you can’t get new IPv4 
> addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6. The free market 
> is solving the problem right now. Another solution isn’t needed. 

Really? How many mail servers are up on IPv6? How many legacy mail 
clients can handle IPv6? How many MTA software packages can handle IPv6 
today "right out of the box" without specific configuration? 

Does any IPv6 enabled ISP provide PTR records for mail servers? 

How does Google handle mail from an IPv6 server? 

The Internet is not just the Web. 

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Mike Hammett]

" Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this wasted 
effort had been put into that, instead. " 


My assumption is not many because the people talking about this likely either 
already have or will not deploy IPv6. Those that are willing to deploy IPv6, 
but have not are too busy to be engaging in the conversation. Well, mostly. 





- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Owen DeLong via NANOG"  
To: "Christopher Hawker"  
Cc: "North American Operators' Group"  
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:23:35 AM 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 



This gift from the bad idea fairy just keeps on giving. You’ve presented your 
case numerous times. The IETF has repeatedly found no consensus for it and yet 
you persist. 


Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this wasted 
effort had been put into that, instead. 


Owen 





On Feb 13, 2024, at 14:16, Christopher Hawker  wrote: 







Hi Tom, 


We aren't trying to have a debate on this. All we can do is present our case, 
explain our reasons and hope that we can gain a consensus from the community. 


I understand that some peers don't like the idea of this happening and yes we 
understand the technical work behind getting this across the line. It's easy 
enough for us to say "this will never happen" or to put it into the "too hard" 
basket, however, the one thing I can guarantee is that will never happen, if 
nothing is done. 


Let's not think about ourselves for a moment, and think about the potential 
positive impact that this could bring. 


Regards, 
Christopher Hawker 


From: Tom Beecher  
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:23 AM 
To: Christopher Hawker  
Cc: North American Operators' Group ; aus...@lists.ausnog.net 
; Christopher Hawker via sanog ; 
apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net  
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 




Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This won't 
be easy to accomplish and it will take some time. 




It won't ever be 'accomplished' by trying to debate this in the media. 


On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:05 AM Christopher Hawker < ch...@thesysadmin.au > 
wrote: 





Hello all, 


[Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on AusNOG, SANOG 
and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers to engage in the discussion on 
their respective forums.] 


Just to shed some light on the article and our involvement... 


Since September 1981, 240/4 has been reserved for future use, see 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml . 
This space has always been reserved for future use and given the global 
shortage of available space for new network operators we feel it is appropriate 
for this space to be reclassified as Unicast space available for delegation by 
IANA/PTI to RIRs on behalf of ICANN. 


At present, the IP space currently available for RIRs to delegate to new 
members is minimal, if any at all. The primary goal of our call for change is 
to afford smaller players who are wanting to enter the industry the opportunity 
to do so without having to shell out the big dollars for space. Although I do 
not agree with IP space being treated as a commodity (as this was not what it 
was intended to be), those who can afford to purchase space may do so and those 
who cannot should be able to obtain space from their respective RIR without 
having to wait over a year in some cases just to obtain space. It's not 
intended to flood the market with resources that can be sold off to the highest 
bidder, and this can very well be a way for network operators to plan to 
properly roll out IPv6. At this point in time, the uptake and implementation of 
IPv6 is far too low (only 37% according to https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6 ) 
for new networks to deploy IPv6 single-stack, meaning that we need to continue 
supporting IPv4 deployments. 


The reallocation of IPv4 space marked as Future Use would not restrict or 
inhibit the deployment of IPv6, if anything, in our view it will help the 
deployment through allowing these networks to service a greater number of 
customers than what a single /24 v4 prefix will allow. Entire regions of an 
economy have the potential to be serviced by a single /23 IPv4 prefix when used 
in conjunction with IPv6 space. 


Now, some have argued that we should not do anything with IPv4 and simply let 
it die out. IPv4 will be around for the foreseeable future and while it is, we 
need to allow new operators to continue deploying networks. It is unfair of us 
to say "Let's all move towards IPv6 and just let IPv4 die" however the reality 
of the situation is that while we continue to treat it as a commodity and allow 
v6 uptake to progress as slowly as it is, we need to continue supporting it v4. 
Some have also

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Brian Knight via NANOG]

Depends what size block is being traded. Prices for /16 and larger have been flat since 2021.One thing is for sure: the cost for any size block has not dropped back to 2013 levels.Consider also that providers are starting to pass the charges onto their customers, like $DAYJOB-1 (an NSP) and now AWS this year. Those who may not be trading address blocks are starting to feel the bite.-BrianOn Feb 15, 2024, at 5:31 PM, Tom Beecher  wrote:$/IPv4 address peaked in 2021, and has been declining since. On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 16:05 Brian Knight via NANOG  wrote:On 2024-02-15 13:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote:
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
> 
>   The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
>   Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.
> 
> If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
> within a month.

As others have noted, and to paraphrase a long-ago quote from this 
mailing list, I'm sure all of Netflix's competitors hope Netflix does 
that.

I remain hopeful that the climbing price of unique, available IPv4 
addresses eventually forces migration to v6. From my armchair, only 
through economics will this situation will be resolved.

> --lyndon

-Brian

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Tom Beecher]

$/IPv4 address peaked in 2021, and has been declining since.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 16:05 Brian Knight via NANOG 
wrote:

> On 2024-02-15 13:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote:
> > I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
> >
> >   The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
> >   Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.
> >
> > If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
> > within a month.
>
> As others have noted, and to paraphrase a long-ago quote from this
> mailing list, I'm sure all of Netflix's competitors hope Netflix does
> that.
>
> I remain hopeful that the climbing price of unique, available IPv4
> addresses eventually forces migration to v6. From my armchair, only
> through economics will this situation will be resolved.
>
> > --lyndon
>
> -Brian
>

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Brian Knight via NANOG]

On 2024-02-15 13:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

  The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
  Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.

If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
within a month.


As others have noted, and to paraphrase a long-ago quote from this 
mailing list, I'm sure all of Netflix's competitors hope Netflix does 
that.


I remain hopeful that the climbing price of unique, available IPv4 
addresses eventually forces migration to v6. From my armchair, only 
through economics will this situation will be resolved.



--lyndon


-Brian

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

For everyone’s amusement:
[root@owen log]# grep 'IPv6' maillog | wc -l
2648
[root@owen log]# grep 'IPv4' maillog | wc -l
0


Now admittedly, this isn’t really a fair report because sendmail doesn’t tag 
IPv4 address as “IPv4” like it does IPv6 addresses.

e.g.: Feb 15 19:22:59 owen sendmail[1545111]: STARTTLS=server, relay=localhost 
[IPv6:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1], version=TLSv1.3, verify=NOT, 
cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384, bits=256/256

A slightly more fair version:
[root@owen log]# grep 'connect from' maillog | wc -l
14547
[root@owen log]# grep 'connect from' maillog | grep IPv6 | wc -l
431


Which shows that 431 of 14547 total connections came via IPv6 during the log 
period (which begins 00:00:39 UTC Feb. 11) and continues to the time of this 
writing.

However, that is overly generous to IPv4 because a much higher percentage of 
the connections on IPv6 result in actual mail transfer while many of the IPv4 
connections are various failed authentication attempts, attempts to deliver 
rejected (SPAM, other) messages, and other various failures to complete the 
delivery process (disconnects after EHLO, etc.).

As stated earlier, approximately 40% of all mail received by my MTA arrives 
over IPv6.

FWIW, most of my netflix viewing is done via IPv6 as well.

turning off IPv4 is a tall order and a huge risk for Netflix to take, so I 
don’t see that happening. You’re not wrong about the likely impact, but it 
would be a rough contest between ISPs telling their customers “Netflix turned 
us off, blame them” and Netflix telling its customers “We’re no longer 
supporting the legacy internet protocol and your ISP needs to modernize.”. In 
the end it likely turns into a pox on both their houses and the ISPs in 
question and Netflix both lose a bunch of customers in the process.

OTOH, as new products come out that are unable to get IPv4 and are delivered 
over IPv6 only, this will eventually have roughly the same effect without the 
avoidable business risk involved in Netflix leading the way. this is my primary 
argument against the proposal, it will further delay this inevitability which, 
in turn, prolongs the pain period of this transition. While a handful of new 
entrants might benefit in some way in the short term from such a thing, in the 
long term, it’s actually harmful to everyone overall.

Owen


> On Feb 15, 2024, at 11:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) 
>  wrote:
> 
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
> 
>  The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
>  Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.
> 
> If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
> within a month.
> 
> --lyndon

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 11:10 AM Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)
 wrote:
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
>
>   The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
>   Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.
>
> If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
> within a month.

If only a couple of large businesses would slit their throats by
refusing to service a large swath of their paying customers, IPv6
deployment would surely accelerate.


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

  The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
  Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.

If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
within a month.

--lyndon

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)]

> >  How many legacy mail clients can handle IPv6?

I would suspect all of them, since MUAs, by definition, are not
involved in any mail transport operations.  But if you're thinking
of MUAs that use Submission, they are unlikely to care one whit
what the underlying transport is.  You configure a submission
hostname, and the client just hands that off to the underlying OS
to deal with.  It doesn't care what parameters are passed to the
connect() call under the hood.

As for mail servers handling v6 out of the box, I am not familiar
with *any* currently shipping MTA that does NOT do v6 with no
configuration required.

--lyndon

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Tom Beecher]

>
> This is the first time we've presented this case so I'm uncertain as to
> how you've come to the conclusion that I've "presented [my] case numerous
> times" and that we "continue to persist".


This may be the first time your group has presented your opinions on 240/4,
but you are not the first. It's been brought up at IETF multiple times,
multiple drafts submitted, multiple debates / convos / arguments had.

At the end of the day, the following is still true.

1. Per RFC2860, IANA maintains the registry of IPv4 allocations to RIRs,
and the IPv4 Special Address Space Registry.
2. The IPv4 Special Address Space Registry records 240.0.0.0/4 as Reserved
, per RFC1112, Section 4.
3. Any changes to the IPv4 Special Address Space Registry require IETF
Review , RFC7249, Section 2.2.
4. IETF Review is defined in RFC5226.

In summation, the status of 240/4 CAN ONLY be changed IF the IETF process
results in an RFC that DIRECTS IANA to update the IPv4 Special Address
Space Registry. To date, the IETF process has not done so.

Making the case on mailing lists , forums, or media outlets may try to win
hearts and minds, but unless the IETF process is engaged with, nothing will
change. Of course, some will want to reply that 'the IETF are meanies and
don't want to do what we want'. All I'd say to that is , welcome to the
process of making / changing internet standards.  :)



On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 6:29 AM Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> Owen,
>
> This is the first time we've presented this case so I'm uncertain as to
> how you've come to the conclusion that I've "presented [my] case numerous
> times" and that we "continue to persist".
>
> I also don't know how us diverting energy from 240/4 towards IPv6
> deployment in privately-owned networks will help. People cannot be made to
> adopt IPv6 (although IMO they should) and until they are ready to do so we
> must continue to support IPv4, for new and existing networks. While we can
> encourage and help people move towards IPv6 we can't force adoption through
> prevention of access to IPv4.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> --
> *From:* Owen DeLong 
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2024 4:23 AM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* Tom Beecher ; North American Operators' Group <
> nanog@nanog.org>
> *Subject:* Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
> This gift from the bad idea fairy just keeps on giving. You’ve presented
> your case numerous times. The IETF has repeatedly found no consensus for it
> and yet you persist.
>
> Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this
> wasted effort had been put into that, instead.
>
> Owen
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2024, at 14:16, Christopher Hawker 
> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Tom,
>
> We aren't trying to have a debate on this. All we can do is present our
> case, explain our reasons and hope that we can gain a consensus from the
> community.
>
> I understand that some peers don't like the idea of this happening and yes
> we understand the technical work behind getting this across the line. It's
> easy enough for us to say "this will never happen" or to put it into the
> "too hard" basket, however, the one thing I can guarantee is that will
> never happen, if nothing is done.
>
> Let's not think about ourselves for a moment, and think about the
> potential positive impact that this could bring.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> --
> *From:* Tom Beecher 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:23 AM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* North American Operators' Group ;
> aus...@lists.ausnog.net ; Christopher Hawker via
> sanog ; apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net <
> apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
>
> Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This
> won't be easy to accomplish and it will take some time.
>
>
>  It won't ever be 'accomplished' by trying to debate this in the media.
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:05 AM Christopher Hawker 
> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> [Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on AusNOG,
> SANOG and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers to engage in the
> discussion on their respective forums.]
>
> Just to shed some light on the article and our involvement...
>
> Since September 1981, 240/4 has been reserved for future use, see
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml.
> This space has always been reserved for future use and given the global
> shortage of available space for new network operators we feel it is
> appropriate for this space to be reclassified as Unicast space available
> for delega

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Feb 15, 2024, at 03:29, Christopher Hawker  wrote:
> 
> 
> Owen,
> 
> This is the first time we've presented this case so I'm uncertain as to how 
> you've come to the conclusion that I've "presented [my] case numerous times" 
> and that we "continue to persist".
> 
It may be your first time at bat, but this proposal has been rejected in the 
IETF many times before over at least 2 decades. 

> I also don't know how us diverting energy from 240/4 towards IPv6 deployment 
> in privately-owned networks will help. People cannot be made to adopt IPv6 
> (although IMO they should) and until they are ready to do so we must continue 
> to support IPv4, for new and existing networks. While we can encourage and 
> help people move towards IPv6 we can't force adoption through prevention of 
> access to IPv4.

Actually, no,  no we should not continue to support IPv4. The sooner there are 
real world consequences to those networks that have failed to implement IPv6, 
the sooner they will finally do so. 

Unfortunately, yes, this will be temporarily painful to new entrants that are 
IPv6 only until there is a sufficient critical mass of them to drive the 
remaining (and ever decreasing) IPv4 only networks to finally act. 

Delaying that inevitability only prolongs this pain and does not improve or 
promote any common good. 

Owen

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Feb 14, 2024, at 18:25, Stephen Satchell  wrote:
> 
> On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
>> The best option is what is happening right now:  you can’t get new IPv4
>> addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6.  The free market
>>  is solving the problem right now.  Another solution isn’t needed.
> 
> Really?  How many mail servers are up on IPv6?  How many legacy mail clients 
> can handle IPv6?  How many MTA software packages can handle IPv6 today "right 
> out of the box" without specific configuration?

Quite a few, actually. About 40% of my email comes and goes via IPv6. 

Sendai, postfix, outlook, and several others all handle IPv6 without need for 
any more IPv6 specific configuration than is required for IPv4. 

> 
> Does any IPv6 enabled ISP provide PTR records for mail servers?

Yes. Most of the transit providers I deal with offer ip6.arpa delegation at 
least. You can either stand up your own NS or use any of a variety of free DNS 
providers to host that delegation. 

> 
> How does Google handle mail from an IPv6 server?

So far I’ve had no issues exchanging mail with Google, Yahoo, or MSN (former 
Hotmail) on IPv6. 

> 
> The Internet is not just the Web.

True. Guess what… SSH, VNC, SMTP, IMAP, and many other things are working just 
fine on IPv6. 

IPv6 isn’t just the web either. IPv6 is the modern internet. 

Owen

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

There is one other mechanism available that has not yet come into play. One 
which this proposal seeks to further delay. In fact IMHO, the one that is most 
likely to ultimately succeed…

At some point new entrants will be unable to obtain IPv4. When there is a 
sufficient critical mass of those that IPv4 only sites cannot reach, those 
sites will be faced with an ROI on IPv6 deployment they can no longer ignore. 

Hence, not only is this bad idea a waste of effort, but it’s actually harmful 
in the short, medium, and long terms. 

Owen


> On Feb 14, 2024, at 15:35, Christopher Hawker  wrote:
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> If you feel that it is wasted time, you are welcome to not partake in the 
> discussion. Your remarks have been noted.
> 
> It's all well and good to say that "more sites could have IPv6 if time wasn't 
> being wasted on 240/4" however we can only do so much regarding the 
> deployment of v6 within networks we manage. All we can do is educate people 
> on the importance of IPv6 uptake, we can not force people to adopt it. The 
> only way to rapidly accelerate the uptake of IPv6 is for networks is to 
> either offer better rates for v6 transit, or disable v4 connectivity 
> completely.
> 
> Otherwise v6 connectivity is going to dawdle at the current rate it is.
> 
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> From: NANOG  on behalf of John 
> Levine 
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:11 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org 
> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
>  
> It appears that William Herrin  said:
> >On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:23 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG  
> >wrote:
> >> Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this 
> >> wasted effort had been put into that, instead.
> >
> >"Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking;
> 
> Well, OK, think how many more sites could hav IPv6 if people weren't
> wasting time arguing about this nonsense.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> 

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 3:08 AM Christopher Hawker  wrote:
> The idea to this is to allow new networks to emerge
> onto the internet, without potentially having to fork
> out substantial amounts of money.

Hi Chris,

I think that would be the worst possible use for 240/4. The last thing
new entrants need is IP address space with complex and quirky legacy
issues.

No-sale on the money issue too. I did a cost analysis years ago on the
money involved in "the rest of us" accepting a route announcement into
the DFZ. The short version is that if you can't afford IPv4 addresses
at the current market prices, you don't belong here. Your presence
with a /24 will collectively cost us more than you spent, just in the
first year.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Christopher Hawker  said:
> The idea to this is to allow new networks to emerge onto the internet, 
> without potentially having to fork out substantial amounts of money.

There is a substatial amount of money involved in trying to make 240/4
usable on the Internet.  Network equipment vendors, software vendors,
and companies and users currently operating on the Internet will have to
spend time and money to make that happen.

So basically, you are looking for everyone currently involved in the
Internet operations to subsidize these theoretical new companies, which
may be competitors, may or may not succeed (lots of new companies fail
for reasons unrelated to IPv4 address space cost), etc.

Are you also looking for new rules to impose additional limits on
transfers of 240/4 space?  Because since you want this space to go to
new companies, a bunch of them will fail (as a lot of companies do not
succeed) and be bought out by existing larger companies, just shifting
that 240/4 space right back into the same hands.  In fact, it would be
an obvious incentive to start a venture that can qualify for 240/4
space, only to turn around and sell the business to a pre-existing
company that wants more IPv4 space.

If you want 240/4 to be reserved for these new companies, you haven't
identified ANY reason for ANY existing company or user to exert any
resources, other than "but I want it".
-- 
Chris Adams 

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christopher Hawker]

Owen,

This is the first time we've presented this case so I'm uncertain as to how 
you've come to the conclusion that I've "presented [my] case numerous times" 
and that we "continue to persist".

I also don't know how us diverting energy from 240/4 towards IPv6 deployment in 
privately-owned networks will help. People cannot be made to adopt IPv6 
(although IMO they should) and until they are ready to do so we must continue 
to support IPv4, for new and existing networks. While we can encourage and help 
people move towards IPv6 we can't force adoption through prevention of access 
to IPv4.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

From: Owen DeLong 
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 4:23 AM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: Tom Beecher ; North American Operators' Group 

Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

This gift from the bad idea fairy just keeps on giving. You’ve presented your 
case numerous times. The IETF has repeatedly found no consensus for it and yet 
you persist.

Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this wasted 
effort had been put into that, instead.

Owen


On Feb 13, 2024, at 14:16, Christopher Hawker  wrote:


Hi Tom,

We aren't trying to have a debate on this. All we can do is present our case, 
explain our reasons and hope that we can gain a consensus from the community.

I understand that some peers don't like the idea of this happening and yes we 
understand the technical work behind getting this across the line. It's easy 
enough for us to say "this will never happen" or to put it into the "too hard" 
basket, however, the one thing I can guarantee is that will never happen, if 
nothing is done.

Let's not think about ourselves for a moment, and think about the potential 
positive impact that this could bring.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

From: Tom Beecher 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:23 AM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: North American Operators' Group ; aus...@lists.ausnog.net 
; Christopher Hawker via sanog ; 
apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This won't 
be easy to accomplish and it will take some time.

 It won't ever be 'accomplished' by trying to debate this in the media.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:05 AM Christopher Hawker 
mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.au>> wrote:
Hello all,

[Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on AusNOG, SANOG 
and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers to engage in the discussion on 
their respective forums.]

Just to shed some light on the article and our involvement...

Since September 1981, 240/4 has been reserved for future use, see 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml. 
This space has always been reserved for future use and given the global 
shortage of available space for new network operators we feel it is appropriate 
for this space to be reclassified as Unicast space available for delegation by 
IANA/PTI to RIRs on behalf of ICANN.

At present, the IP space currently available for RIRs to delegate to new 
members is minimal, if any at all. The primary goal of our call for change is 
to afford smaller players who are wanting to enter the industry the opportunity 
to do so without having to shell out the big dollars for space. Although I do 
not agree with IP space being treated as a commodity (as this was not what it 
was intended to be), those who can afford to purchase space may do so and those 
who cannot should be able to obtain space from their respective RIR without 
having to wait over a year in some cases just to obtain space. It's not 
intended to flood the market with resources that can be sold off to the highest 
bidder, and this can very well be a way for network operators to plan to 
properly roll out IPv6. At this point in time, the uptake and implementation of 
IPv6 is far too low (only 37% according to https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6) 
for new networks to deploy IPv6 single-stack, meaning that we need to continue 
supporting IPv4 deployments.

The reallocation of IPv4 space marked as Future Use would not restrict or 
inhibit the deployment of IPv6, if anything, in our view it will help the 
deployment through allowing these networks to service a greater number of 
customers than what a single /24 v4 prefix will allow. Entire regions of an 
economy have the potential to be serviced by a single /23 IPv4 prefix when used 
in conjunction with IPv6 space.

Now, some have argued that we should not do anything with IPv4 and simply let 
it die out. IPv4 will be around for the foreseeable future and while it is, we 
need to allow new operators to continue deploying networks. It is unfair of us 
to say "Let's all move towards IPv6 and just let IPv4 die" however the reality 
of the situation is that while we continue to treat it as a commodity and 

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Dave Taht]

I attempted with as much nuance and humor as I could muster, to
explain and summarize the ipv4 exhaustion problem, and CGNAT, the
240/4 controversy as well as the need to continue making the IPv6
transition, on this podcast yesterday.

https://hackaday.com/2024/02/14/floss-weekly-episode-769-10-more-internet/

Enjoy.

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christopher Hawker]

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 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:51 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: Denis Fondras ; 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  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  on behalf of Denis 
> Fondras via NANOG
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:10 PM
> To: 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

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christian de Larrinaga via NANOG]

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  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  on behalf of Denis 
> Fondras via NANOG
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:10 PM
> To: 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 

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Mark Andrews]

> On 15 Feb 2024, at 13:25, Stephen Satchell  wrote:
> 
> On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
>> The best option is what is happening right now:  you can’t get new IPv4
>> addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6.  The free market
>>  is solving the problem right now.  Another solution isn’t needed.
> 
> Really?  How many mail servers are up on IPv6?

Lots.

>  How many legacy mail clients can handle IPv6?

Most.  If you are using mbox format there is no change.  The only ones that
don’t handle it are ones that don’t have support for creating IPv6 connections.

>  How many MTA software packages can handle IPv6 today "right out of the box" 
> without specific configuration?

Most.  Really its been 20+ years since IPv6 was added to most of the mail
products that actually use TCP to connect to a mail store or to send email.

Just about the only thing that was needed to be done was to look for 
records in addition to A records after looking up the MX records or to
replace gethostbyname with getnodebyname and then getaddrinfo.  This was a
10 minute job for most developers.

If you publish  records for a service they will be used.

> Does any IPv6 enabled ISP provide PTR records for mail servers?

If they want to send email from those addresses they do.  

> How does Google handle mail from an IPv6 server?

Mostly the same as from IPv4.

> The Internet is not just the Web.

It isn’t.  But you could answer most of these by just looking at the email 
headers in
your own incoming mail.  Email has been delivered over IPv6 for over 2 decades 
now.


-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742  INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Stephen Satchell]

On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:

The best option is what is happening right now:  you can’t get new IPv4
addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6.  The free market
  is solving the problem right now.  Another solution isn’t needed.


Really?  How many mail servers are up on IPv6?  How many legacy mail 
clients can handle IPv6?  How many MTA software packages can handle IPv6 
today "right out of the box" without specific configuration?


Does any IPv6 enabled ISP provide PTR records for mail servers?

How does Google handle mail from an IPv6 server?

The Internet is not just the Web.

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Tom Beecher]

>
> All we can do is educate people on the importance of IPv6 uptake, we can
> not force people to adopt it.
>

At this stage of the game, networks and products that don't support V6
aren't likely to do so unless there is a forcing function to make them do
it. Meaning money.



On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 6:35 PM Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> John,
>
> If you feel that it is wasted time, you are welcome to not partake in the
> discussion. Your remarks have been noted.
>
> It's all well and good to say that "more sites could have IPv6 if time
> wasn't being wasted on 240/4" however we can only do so much regarding the
> deployment of v6 within networks we manage. All we can do is educate people
> on the importance of IPv6 uptake, we can not force people to adopt it. The
> only way to rapidly accelerate the uptake of IPv6 is for networks is to
> either offer better rates for v6 transit, or disable v4 connectivity
> completely.
>
> Otherwise v6 connectivity is going to dawdle at the current rate it is.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> --
> *From:* NANOG  on behalf of
> John Levine 
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:11 AM
> *To:* nanog@nanog.org 
> *Subject:* Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
> It appears that William Herrin  said:
> >On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:23 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG 
> wrote:
> >> Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this
> wasted effort had been put into that, instead.
> >
> >"Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking;
>
> Well, OK, think how many more sites could hav IPv6 if people weren't
> wasting time arguing about this nonsense.
>
> R's,
> John
>
>
>

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Tom Samplonius]

… The only way to rapidly accelerate the uptake of IPv6 is for networks is to 
either offer better rates for v6 transit, or disable v4 connectivity completely.


This is a false dichotomy:  those aren’t the only two options, nor the best two 
options.

The best option is what is happening right now:  you can’t get new IPv4 
addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6.  The free market is 
solving the problem right now.  Another solution isn’t needed.

For example, Amazon is charging $0.005 per IPv4 per hour, which is a perfect.  
AWS users can either choose to use IPv4 at that rate, or choose to use IPv6 at 
$0.000 per hour.  And Azure is basically doing the same thing.  See  
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/ip-addresses/ and 
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-ca/updates/azure-public-ipv6-offerings-are-free-as-of-july-31/

So just sit back and watch the world re-address to IPv6.  It’s not a race.  


Tom

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christopher Hawker]

John,

If you feel that it is wasted time, you are welcome to not partake in the 
discussion. Your remarks have been noted.

It's all well and good to say that "more sites could have IPv6 if time wasn't 
being wasted on 240/4" however we can only do so much regarding the deployment 
of v6 within networks we manage. All we can do is educate people on the 
importance of IPv6 uptake, we can not force people to adopt it. The only way to 
rapidly accelerate the uptake of IPv6 is for networks is to either offer better 
rates for v6 transit, or disable v4 connectivity completely.

Otherwise v6 connectivity is going to dawdle at the current rate it is.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

From: NANOG  on behalf of John 
Levine 
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:11 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

It appears that William Herrin  said:
>On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:23 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
>> Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this wasted 
>> effort had been put into that, instead.
>
>"Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking;

Well, OK, think how many more sites could hav IPv6 if people weren't
wasting time arguing about this nonsense.

R's,
John

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[John Levine]

It appears that William Herrin  said:
>On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:23 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
>> Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this wasted 
>> effort had been put into that, instead.
>
>"Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking; 

Well, OK, think how many more sites could hav IPv6 if people weren't
wasting time arguing about this nonsense.

R's,
John

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[David Conrad]

Christopher,

On Feb 14, 2024, at 4:49 AM, Christopher Hawker  wrote:
> I agree with the fact that introducing this space has the very real risk of 
> it being obtained by the highest bidder. Perhaps I may be naive in believing 
> that we have a possible chance to delegate this space wisely and prevent it 
> from being exhausted at a rather rapid rate, however I can only hope that 
> people will see the potential benefit that this could bring, and policy not 
> being changed to benefit the larger players in the space.
> 
> IP resources were never intended to become a commodity, rather a tool that 
> allowed people to globally connect.

You’re mixing agendas. In earlier messages, you had argued the address space 
should be provided to "new entrants.” However, if IP resource were intended to 
be a tool that allows people to globally connect, then the age/size/previous 
holdings of the organization obtaining the address space shouldn’t matter: what 
matters is whether it is used for connectivity.  Indeed, if you want to 
facilitate the greatest amount of connectivity, it can be (and has been) argued 
the allocations should be made to the larger players since they have more 
resources to put the address space into use, greater reach, larger marketing 
departments, etc. 

(These are the same arguments made at various RIR policy meetings prior to 
runout any time anyone suggested limitations on IPv4 address allocations. The 
nice thing about history repeating itself is that you know when to go out and 
get popcorn.)

> It should never have become a commodity, and it's a shame that it is being 
> treated as such with a price tag put on it.

I suspect any limited resource with unlimited demand is going to end up here. 
You’re arguing against markets. Good luck with that.

Regards,
-drc

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:23 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
> Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this wasted 
> effort had been put into that, instead.

"Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking; it is
people's tendency to intuitively judge that a situation is zero-sum,
even when this is not the case. This bias promotes zero-sum fallacies,
false beliefs that situations are zero-sum. Such fallacies can cause
other false judgements and poor decisions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_thinking

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Stephen Satchell]

On 2/14/24 9:30 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:

That experiment already failed with the original v6 adoption process.
It’s been more than 20 years and all we have proven is that as long as
people can have an excuse to avoid v6 deployment, they will continue to
do so.

Giving them another 20 years of excuses is a step against the collective
  good IMHO.


I agree with you, based on my experience with several Internet 
providers.  One of the biggest issues I have seen is a lack of a case to 
adopt IPv6 widely and completely.  The management of the upper level 
providers ask this question: what is the return on the investment? 
Until that is convincingly answered, the foot-dragging of IPv6 adoption 
will continue.


In my particular case, it's the complete lack of support by my upstream 
provider.  Yes, they offer IPv6 connectivity.  No, they don't offer 
guaranteed public IPv6 address space.  No, they don't provide the same 
support for IPv6 that they do for IPv4.  I had to pull toenails to get 
enough information to bring up a Web server in IPv6.  It took getting a 
business fiber account to even get the bare minimum -- and I had to get 
a little creative to get the rest of the details that my ISP didn't provide.


What is the big thing missing, beside public IPv6 space?


$ dig -x 2600:1700:79b0:ddc0::3

; <<>> DiG 9.16.1-Ubuntu <<>> -x 2600:1700:79b0:ddc0::3
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 44020
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 65494
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;3.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.c.d.d.0.b.9.7.0.0.7.1.0.0.6.2.ip6.arpa. IN 
PTR


Now, this is my web server's address.  My mail server's proposed IPv6 
address, is only one digit away.  Can I get a PTR record for it?  No. 
Can I get a delegation for my IPv6 address range?  No.  "We don't 
support IPv6."  That has been the refrain since 2018.  It's 2024 -- you 
do the math.


We are talking about a fairly large many-customer three-letter company, 
not some hole in the wall back-room operation.


Could I handle a delegation?  Yes.  Putting up a DNS server is child's 
play.  On a box with a public IP address.  That is not the barrier.


Now, I can't speak for all companies.  For example, I have no clue what 
support and services Hurricane Electric provides to its customers with 
regard to IPv6, even though I've seen many mentions of HE over the decades.


When the community wants to get serious about advancing the deployment 
of IPv6, the community itself needs to buy into IPv6.  At least one big 
player isn't interested.

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> 
> 1. RIRs, following 
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/allocation-ipv4-rirs-2012-02-25-en, 
> would request new /8s, and receive those allocations.

I don’t think this applies any more. I could be wrong, but I think based on 
current practice, IANA would simply distribute 3 of the 16 /8s to each of the 
RIRs. 

That’s been the process for recovered blocks since the last 5 /8s from the free 
pool were distributed. 

> 2. Entities[*] with pent up demand would submit requests and have those 
> requests filled by the RIRs

Which would rapidly deplete that space in most RIRs and leave an abundance of 
wasted space sitting on the shelf in a couple of RIRs with policies that 
prolong the shortage on the pretense that it enhances the useful life of IPv4. 

> 3. While more /8s in 240/4 remain, go to step 1

Or not. (See my comment on step 1)

> 4. Return to status quo ante.

Which happens almost immediately for IANA and soon thereafter in most RIRs. 

> 
> 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?

Here, I 100% agree with David. (Which is quite rare)

Owen

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

That experiment already failed with the original v6 adoption process. It’s been 
more than 20 years and all we have proven is that as long as people can have an 
excuse to avoid v6 deployment, they will continue to do so. 

Giving them another 20 years of excuses is a step against the collective good 
IMHO. 

Owen


> On Feb 13, 2024, at 14:43, Christopher Hawker  wrote:
> 
> 
> Per my original email, looking at current exhaustion rates in the APNIC 
> service region, if we stuck to allocating space to new entities and 
> maintained allocating a maximum of a /22 to networks, just 3 x /8 would last 
> over 20 years. This should be a more than sufficient timeframe for a much 
> wider v6 adoption and deployment.
> 
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> From: NANOG  on behalf of 
> Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 7:42 AM
> To: North American Operators' Group 
> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
>  
> And what are they going to do when 240/4 runs out?

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

This gift from the bad idea fairy just keeps on giving. You’ve presented your case numerous times. The IETF has repeatedly found no consensus for it and yet you persist. Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this wasted effort had been put into that, instead. OwenOn Feb 13, 2024, at 14:16, Christopher Hawker  wrote:






Hi Tom,




We aren't trying to have a debate on this. All we can do is present our case, explain our reasons and hope that we can gain a consensus from the community.




I understand that some peers don't like the idea of this happening and yes we understand the technical work behind getting this across the line. It's easy enough for us to say "this will never happen" or to put it into the "too hard" basket, however, the one
 thing I can guarantee is that will never happen, if nothing is done.




Let's not think about ourselves for a moment, and think about the potential positive impact that this could bring.




Regards,

Christopher Hawker


From: Tom Beecher 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:23 AM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: North American Operators' Group ; aus...@lists.ausnog.net ; Christopher Hawker via sanog ; apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
 




Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This won't be easy to accomplish and it will take some time. 


 It won't ever be 'accomplished' by trying to debate this in the media.



On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:05 AM Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.au> wrote:





Hello all,




[Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on AusNOG, SANOG and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers to engage in the discussion on their respective forums.]




Just to shed some light on the article and our involvement...



Since September 1981, 240/4 has been reserved for future use, see

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml. This space has always been reserved for future use and given the global shortage of available space for new network operators we feel it is appropriate for this space to be reclassified
 as Unicast space available for delegation by IANA/PTI to RIRs on behalf of ICANN.



At present, the IP space currently available for RIRs to delegate to new members is minimal, if any at all. The primary
 goal of our call for change is to afford smaller players who are wanting to enter the industry the opportunity to do so without having to shell out the big dollars for space. Although I do not agree with IP space being treated as a commodity (as this was not
 what it was intended to be), those who can afford to purchase space may do so and those who cannot should be able to obtain space from their respective RIR without having to wait over a year in some cases just to obtain space. It's not intended to flood the
 market with resources that can be sold off to the highest bidder, and this can very well be a way for network operators to plan to properly roll out IPv6. At this point in time, the uptake and implementation of IPv6 is far too low (only 37% according to

https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6) for new networks to deploy IPv6 single-stack, meaning that we need to continue supporting IPv4 deployments.


The reallocation of IPv4 space marked as Future Use would not restrict or inhibit the deployment of IPv6, if anything,
 in our view it will help the deployment through allowing these networks to service a greater number of customers than what a single /24 v4 prefix will allow. Entire regions of an economy have the potential to be serviced by a single /23 IPv4 prefix when used
 in conjunction with IPv6 space.


Now, some have argued that we should not do anything with IPv4 and simply let it die out. IPv4 will be around for the
 foreseeable future and while it is, we need to allow new operators to continue deploying networks. It is unfair of us to say "Let's all move towards IPv6 and just let IPv4 die" however the reality of the situation is that while we continue to treat it as a
 commodity and allow v6 uptake to progress as slowly as it is, we need to continue supporting it v4. Some have also argued that networks use this space internally within their infrastructure. 240/4 was always marked as Reserved for Future Use and if network
 operators elect to squat on reserved space instead of electing to deploy v6 across their internal networks then that is an issue they need to resolve, and it should not affect how it is reallocated. It goes against the bottom-up approach of policy development
 by allowing larger network operators to state that this space cannot be made unicast because they are using it internally (even though it's not listed in RFC1918), and its reallocation would affect their networks.


In the APNIC region, there is a policy which only allows for a maximum of a /23 IPv4 prefix to be allocated/assigned to
 new members and any more space required 

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Ryan Hamel]

Allocating 240/4 only temporarily drives down pricing until it's all assigned, 
then we're all back at square one. Ya know what does not put us back square 
one, nor waste our time? Implementing IPv6.

Ryan Hamel


From: NANOG  on behalf of Christopher 
Hawker 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 4:49 AM
To: David Conrad 
Cc: North American Operators' Group 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when 
clicking links or opening attachments.

Hi David,

I agree with the fact that introducing this space has the very real risk of it 
being obtained by the highest bidder. Perhaps I may be naive in believing that 
we have a possible chance to delegate this space wisely and prevent it from 
being exhausted at a rather rapid rate, however I can only hope that people 
will see the potential benefit that this could bring, and policy not being 
changed to benefit the larger players in the space.

IP resources were never intended to become a commodity, rather a tool that 
allowed people to globally connect. It should never have become a commodity, 
and it's a shame that it is being treated as such with a price tag put on it.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

From: David Conrad 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:03 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: North American Operators' Group 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

Christopher,

On Feb 13, 2024, at 4:14 PM, Christopher Hawker  wrote:
This is a second chance to purposefully ration out a finite resource.

Perhaps I’m overly cynical, but other than more players and _way_ more money, 
the dynamics of [limited resource, unlimited demand] don’t appear to have 
changed significantly from the first time around. However, I suspect the real 
roadblock you’ll face in policy discussions (aside from the folks who make 
their money leasing IPv4 addresses) is the argument that efforts to ration and 
thereby extend the life of IPv4 will continue to distort the market and impede 
the only useful signal to network operators regarding the costs of remaining 
with IPv4 compared to supporting IPv6.  Good luck!

Regards,
-drc

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christopher Hawker]

Hi David,

I agree with the fact that introducing this space has the very real risk of it 
being obtained by the highest bidder. Perhaps I may be naive in believing that 
we have a possible chance to delegate this space wisely and prevent it from 
being exhausted at a rather rapid rate, however I can only hope that people 
will see the potential benefit that this could bring, and policy not being 
changed to benefit the larger players in the space.

IP resources were never intended to become a commodity, rather a tool that 
allowed people to globally connect. It should never have become a commodity, 
and it's a shame that it is being treated as such with a price tag put on it.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

From: David Conrad 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:03 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: North American Operators' Group 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

Christopher,

On Feb 13, 2024, at 4:14 PM, Christopher Hawker  wrote:
This is a second chance to purposefully ration out a finite resource.

Perhaps I’m overly cynical, but other than more players and _way_ more money, 
the dynamics of [limited resource, unlimited demand] don’t appear to have 
changed significantly from the first time around. However, I suspect the real 
roadblock you’ll face in policy discussions (aside from the folks who make 
their money leasing IPv4 addresses) is the argument that efforts to ration and 
thereby extend the life of IPv4 will continue to distort the market and impede 
the only useful signal to network operators regarding the costs of remaining 
with IPv4 compared to supporting IPv6.  Good luck!

Regards,
-drc

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christopher Hawker]

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  on behalf of Denis 
Fondras via NANOG 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:10 PM
To: 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

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Denis Fondras via NANOG]

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

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[David Conrad]

Christopher,

On Feb 13, 2024, at 4:14 PM, Christopher Hawker  wrote:
> This is a second chance to purposefully ration out a finite resource.

Perhaps I’m overly cynical, but other than more players and _way_ more money, 
the dynamics of [limited resource, unlimited demand] don’t appear to have 
changed significantly from the first time around. However, I suspect the real 
roadblock you’ll face in policy discussions (aside from the folks who make 
their money leasing IPv4 addresses) is the argument that efforts to ration and 
thereby extend the life of IPv4 will continue to distort the market and impede 
the only useful signal to network operators regarding the costs of remaining 
with IPv4 compared to supporting IPv6.  Good luck!

Regards,
-drc

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Tom Beecher]

>
> We aren't trying to have a debate on this. All we can do is present our
> case, explain our reasons and hope that we can gain a consensus from the
> community.


Respectfully, if you're just putting your case out there and hoping that
people come around to your position, it's never going to happen.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:15 PM Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> We aren't trying to have a debate on this. All we can do is present our
> case, explain our reasons and hope that we can gain a consensus from the
> community.
>
> I understand that some peers don't like the idea of this happening and yes
> we understand the technical work behind getting this across the line. It's
> easy enough for us to say "this will never happen" or to put it into the
> "too hard" basket, however, the one thing I can guarantee is that will
> never happen, if nothing is done.
>
> Let's not think about ourselves for a moment, and think about the
> potential positive impact that this could bring.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> --
> *From:* Tom Beecher 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:23 AM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* North American Operators' Group ;
> aus...@lists.ausnog.net ; Christopher Hawker via
> sanog ; apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net <
> apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
>
> Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This
> won't be easy to accomplish and it will take some time.
>
>
>  It won't ever be 'accomplished' by trying to debate this in the media.
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:05 AM Christopher Hawker 
> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> [Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on AusNOG,
> SANOG and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers to engage in the
> discussion on their respective forums.]
>
> Just to shed some light on the article and our involvement...
>
> Since September 1981, 240/4 has been reserved for future use, see
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml.
> This space has always been reserved for future use and given the global
> shortage of available space for new network operators we feel it is
> appropriate for this space to be reclassified as Unicast space available
> for delegation by IANA/PTI to RIRs on behalf of ICANN.
>
> At present, the IP space currently available for RIRs to delegate to new
> members is minimal, if any at all. The primary goal of our call for change
> is to afford smaller players who are wanting to enter the industry the
> opportunity to do so without having to shell out the big dollars for space.
> Although I do not agree with IP space being treated as a commodity (as this
> was not what it was intended to be), those who can afford to purchase space
> may do so and those who cannot should be able to obtain space from their
> respective RIR without having to wait over a year in some cases just to
> obtain space. It's not intended to flood the market with resources that can
> be sold off to the highest bidder, and this can very well be a way for
> network operators to plan to properly roll out IPv6. At this point in time,
> the uptake and implementation of IPv6 is far too low (only 37% according to
> https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6) for new networks to deploy IPv6
> single-stack, meaning that we need to continue supporting IPv4 deployments.
>
> The reallocation of IPv4 space marked as Future Use would not restrict or
> inhibit the deployment of IPv6, if anything, in our view it will help the
> deployment through allowing these networks to service a greater number of
> customers than what a single /24 v4 prefix will allow. Entire regions of an
> economy have the potential to be serviced by a single /23 IPv4 prefix when
> used in conjunction with IPv6 space.
>
> Now, some have argued that we should not do anything with IPv4 and simply
> let it die out. IPv4 will be around for the foreseeable future and while it
> is, we need to allow new operators to continue deploying networks. It is
> unfair of us to say "Let's all move towards IPv6 and just let IPv4 die"
> however the reality of the situation is that while we continue to treat it
> as a commodity and allow v6 uptake to progress as slowly as it is, we need
> to continue supporting it v4. Some have also argued that networks use this
> space internally within their infrastructure. 240/4 was always marked as
> Reserved for Future Use and if network operators elect to squat on reserved
> space instead of electing to deploy v6 across their internal networks then
> that is an issue they need to resolve, and it should not affect how it is
> reallocated

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christopher Hawker]

Hi Bill,

I agree, that a more viable path may be to look at moving it from reserved to 
unicast (which in itself would be relatively easy to accomplish). Once this has 
been done we could then look at possible use-cases for it instead of trying to 
trying to jump 4 steps ahead.

The idea to this discussion is to get feedback/input and talk about this. If 
there is such a strong push away from this from all stakeholders (and not just 
the top 1% of network operators) then it may not be the way to go. Everyone 
needs to be afforded a say.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

From: William Herrin 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 10:06 AM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: North American Operators' Group 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:34 PM Christopher Hawker  wrote:
> Having [240/4] reclassified as unicast space is indeed much easier.

Hi Chris,

If I were spending my time on the effort, that's what I'd pursue. It's
a low-impact change with no reasonable counter-argument I've seen. As
you noted, half the vendors already treat it as unicast space anyway.


> With that, comes the argument - what about legacy hardware
> that vendors no longer support, or are out of warranty and no
> longer receive software updates?

What about legacy hardware that doesn't support CIDR? What about the
1990s Sparc Stations that don't have enough ram to run anything
vaguely like a modern web browser? You make the key standards change
(from reserved undefined use to reserved unicast use) and over time
varying potential uses for those unicast addresses become practical
despite the receding legacy equipment.

None of us has a crystal ball saying when IPv4 use will start to fall
off. It's entirely possible It'll still be going strong in 20 more
years. If so, and if 240/4 was defined as unicast now, it'll surely be
practical to use it by then.

Making the simple standards change also lets us debate the "best" use
of the addresses while the needed software change happens in parallel,
instead of holding up the software changes while we debate. Allocating
them to the RIRs isn't the only practical use of a new set of unicast
IP addresses. Other plausible uses include:

* More RFC1918 for large organizations.

* IXP addresses which only host routers, not the myriad servers and
end-user client software.

* ICMP unreachable source address block, for use by routers which need
to emit a destination unreachable message but do not have a global IP
address with which to do so.

* A block of designated private-interconnect addresses intended to be
used by off-internet networks using overlapping RFC1918 which
nevertheless need to interconnect.

Indeed, the only use for which we definitely -don't- need more IPv4
addresses is Multicast.

So, a rush to deploy 240/4 to RIRs is not really warranted.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christopher Hawker]

Hi David,

In order to forecast exhaustion rates, we needed something to measure against. 
It would be rather naive of us to assume that allocation policy would remain 
the same tomorrow as it was yesterday, if APNIC received a /8 from IANA. This 
is where we looked at pre-prop127 delegation sizes of up to a /22. If we were 
to allow applicants who have received either a /23 or /24 post-prop127 to apply 
for resources up to a maximum holding of /22 this would last (again, under 
current policy) 20+ years. These of course as mentioned are dependent on 3 x /8 
prefixes.

The intent of this isn't just to drop more space into the wild to be snatched 
up by the highest bidder, it's supposed to afford new players an opportunity to 
connect without having to fork out a small fortune to do so. I can only hope 
that people understand and see this, and instead of selfishly saying no, see 
what it's trying to do, who it can impact and at least understand. I definitely 
understand that RIR policy can change in as little as 12 months and it very 
well could happen that policies will change that see the exhaustion policies 
implemented over the last 15 years all undone for the sake of being able to get 
a quick /20 and for space to disappear in a few years (again) which I don't 
really think is the right way to go. This is a second chance to purposefully 
ration out a finite resource.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

From: David Conrad 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 10:24 AM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: North American Operators' Group 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

Christopher,

On Feb 13, 2024, at 2:15 PM, Christopher Hawker  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.

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[David Conrad]

Christopher,

On Feb 13, 2024, at 2:15 PM, Christopher Hawker  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.

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:34 PM Christopher Hawker  wrote:
> Having [240/4] reclassified as unicast space is indeed much easier.

Hi Chris,

If I were spending my time on the effort, that's what I'd pursue. It's
a low-impact change with no reasonable counter-argument I've seen. As
you noted, half the vendors already treat it as unicast space anyway.


> With that, comes the argument - what about legacy hardware
> that vendors no longer support, or are out of warranty and no
> longer receive software updates?

What about legacy hardware that doesn't support CIDR? What about the
1990s Sparc Stations that don't have enough ram to run anything
vaguely like a modern web browser? You make the key standards change
(from reserved undefined use to reserved unicast use) and over time
varying potential uses for those unicast addresses become practical
despite the receding legacy equipment.

None of us has a crystal ball saying when IPv4 use will start to fall
off. It's entirely possible It'll still be going strong in 20 more
years. If so, and if 240/4 was defined as unicast now, it'll surely be
practical to use it by then.

Making the simple standards change also lets us debate the "best" use
of the addresses while the needed software change happens in parallel,
instead of holding up the software changes while we debate. Allocating
them to the RIRs isn't the only practical use of a new set of unicast
IP addresses. Other plausible uses include:

* More RFC1918 for large organizations.

* IXP addresses which only host routers, not the myriad servers and
end-user client software.

* ICMP unreachable source address block, for use by routers which need
to emit a destination unreachable message but do not have a global IP
address with which to do so.

* A block of designated private-interconnect addresses intended to be
used by off-internet networks using overlapping RFC1918 which
nevertheless need to interconnect.

Indeed, the only use for which we definitely -don't- need more IPv4
addresses is Multicast.

So, a rush to deploy 240/4 to RIRs is not really warranted.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christopher Hawker]

Hello John,

It'll only take "98 years" if we drag our feet. In practicality, I'm of the 
belief that the first prefix from 240/4 can be delegated in as little as 
optimistically 2 years, and conservatively 5 years.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

From: NANOG  on behalf of John 
Levine 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 8:26 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

It appears that Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)  said:
>And what are they going to do when 240/4 runs out?

That will be a hundred years from now, so who cares?

R's,
John

PS: I know this because it will take 98 years of process before the
RIRs can start allocating it.

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christopher Hawker]

Per my original email, looking at current exhaustion rates in the APNIC service 
region, if we stuck to allocating space to new entities and maintained 
allocating a maximum of a /22 to networks, just 3 x /8 would last over 20 
years. This should be a more than sufficient timeframe for a much wider v6 
adoption and deployment.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

From: NANOG  on behalf of Lyndon 
Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 7:42 AM
To: North American Operators' Group 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

And what are they going to do when 240/4 runs out?

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christopher Hawker]

We understand that having 240/4 reclassified as public space for 
assignment/allocation by RIRs will take some time and we are not expecting it 
to happen overnight. Having it reclassified as unicast space is indeed much 
easier. The Linux kernel already supports this (thanks Dave Taht), Windows is a 
"Patch Tuesday" away, and many hardware vendors can enable support for 240/4 
with a minor firmware revision if they already do not.

With that, comes the argument - what about legacy hardware that vendors no 
longer support, or are out of warranty and no longer receive software updates? 
There are a few ways this could go, either network operators replace their 
equipment with equipment that supports this space (and grants allocated for 
organisations in LDCs who may have issues with funding equipment replacement) 
or hardware vendors release a special public firmware update that only 
addresses this change in routability which is exempt from support contract 
requirements (resulting in less equipment from being scrapped).

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

From: William Herrin 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 3:43 AM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: North American Operators' Group 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:03 AM Christopher Hawker  wrote:
> [Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on
> AusNOG, SANOG and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers
> to engage in the discussion on their respective forums.]

Chris,

Do not cross-post lists. Many of the folks who want to discuss are
only subscribed to one of the lists and thus cannot post to the
others. This inevitably results in a disjoint and confusing set of
posts with replies to messages for which the originals didn't make it
to the local list. If you want to discuss something on multiple lists
with multiple audiences, start a separate discussion on each.

Honestly, how can you not know this. It's only been mailing list
etiquette for decades.


> we feel it is appropriate for this space to be reclassified as
> Unicast space available for delegation by IANA/PTI to RIRs
> on behalf of ICANN.

That is probably unrealistic. Getting 240/4 reclassified as unicast is
at least plausible. As you say, there's no residual value in
continuing to hold it in reserve. The opportunity cost has fallen near
zero. But before anybody with a clue is willing to see it allocated to
RIRs for general Internet use they'll want to see studies and
experiments which demonstrate that it's usable enough on the public
Internet to be usefully deployed there.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christopher Hawker]

Hi Tom,

We aren't trying to have a debate on this. All we can do is present our case, 
explain our reasons and hope that we can gain a consensus from the community.

I understand that some peers don't like the idea of this happening and yes we 
understand the technical work behind getting this across the line. It's easy 
enough for us to say "this will never happen" or to put it into the "too hard" 
basket, however, the one thing I can guarantee is that will never happen, if 
nothing is done.

Let's not think about ourselves for a moment, and think about the potential 
positive impact that this could bring.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

From: Tom Beecher 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:23 AM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: North American Operators' Group ; aus...@lists.ausnog.net 
; Christopher Hawker via sanog ; 
apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This won't 
be easy to accomplish and it will take some time.

 It won't ever be 'accomplished' by trying to debate this in the media.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:05 AM Christopher Hawker 
mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.au>> wrote:
Hello all,

[Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on AusNOG, SANOG 
and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers to engage in the discussion on 
their respective forums.]

Just to shed some light on the article and our involvement...

Since September 1981, 240/4 has been reserved for future use, see 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml. 
This space has always been reserved for future use and given the global 
shortage of available space for new network operators we feel it is appropriate 
for this space to be reclassified as Unicast space available for delegation by 
IANA/PTI to RIRs on behalf of ICANN.

At present, the IP space currently available for RIRs to delegate to new 
members is minimal, if any at all. The primary goal of our call for change is 
to afford smaller players who are wanting to enter the industry the opportunity 
to do so without having to shell out the big dollars for space. Although I do 
not agree with IP space being treated as a commodity (as this was not what it 
was intended to be), those who can afford to purchase space may do so and those 
who cannot should be able to obtain space from their respective RIR without 
having to wait over a year in some cases just to obtain space. It's not 
intended to flood the market with resources that can be sold off to the highest 
bidder, and this can very well be a way for network operators to plan to 
properly roll out IPv6. At this point in time, the uptake and implementation of 
IPv6 is far too low (only 37% according to https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6) 
for new networks to deploy IPv6 single-stack, meaning that we need to continue 
supporting IPv4 deployments.

The reallocation of IPv4 space marked as Future Use would not restrict or 
inhibit the deployment of IPv6, if anything, in our view it will help the 
deployment through allowing these networks to service a greater number of 
customers than what a single /24 v4 prefix will allow. Entire regions of an 
economy have the potential to be serviced by a single /23 IPv4 prefix when used 
in conjunction with IPv6 space.

Now, some have argued that we should not do anything with IPv4 and simply let 
it die out. IPv4 will be around for the foreseeable future and while it is, we 
need to allow new operators to continue deploying networks. It is unfair of us 
to say "Let's all move towards IPv6 and just let IPv4 die" however the reality 
of the situation is that while we continue to treat it as a commodity and allow 
v6 uptake to progress as slowly as it is, we need to continue supporting it v4. 
Some have also argued that networks use this space internally within their 
infrastructure. 240/4 was always marked as Reserved for Future Use and if 
network operators elect to squat on reserved space instead of electing to 
deploy v6 across their internal networks then that is an issue they need to 
resolve, and it should not affect how it is reallocated. It goes against the 
bottom-up approach of policy development by allowing larger network operators 
to state that this space cannot be made unicast because they are using it 
internally (even though it's not listed in RFC1918), and its reallocation would 
affect their networks.

In the APNIC region, there is a policy which only allows for a maximum of a /23 
IPv4 prefix to be allocated/assigned to new members and any more space required 
must be acquired through other means. If (as an example) APNIC were to receive 
3 x /8 prefixes from the 240/4 space this would allow for delegations to be 
made for approximately the next ~50 years whereas if policy was changed to 
allow for delegations up to and including a /22 this would extend the current 
pool by 

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Tom Beecher]

>
> PS: I know this because it will take 98 years of process before the
> RIRs can start allocating it.
>

Intense optimism detected!

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 4:27 PM John Levine  wrote:

> It appears that Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)  said:
> >And what are they going to do when 240/4 runs out?
>
> That will be a hundred years from now, so who cares?
>
> R's,
> John
>
> PS: I know this because it will take 98 years of process before the
> RIRs can start allocating it.
>
>
>
>

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[John Levine]

It appears that Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)  said:
>And what are they going to do when 240/4 runs out?

That will be a hundred years from now, so who cares?

R's,
John

PS: I know this because it will take 98 years of process before the
RIRs can start allocating it.

Re: [External] Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Bryan Holloway]

On 2/13/24 21:47, Hunter Fuller wrote:

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:17 PM Bryan Holloway  wrote:

https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ROS/Routing+Protocol+Overview

Ping across? Sure. Ok. But I wouldn't rely on it for anything critical.


Well that's certainly interesting.
You will not see me sticking up for MikroTik's documentation, ever. I
don't think the table reflects the reality of ROS 7, there's even a
note that "Routed traffic does not work to odd address" in one
version. I know that to be false, because, well, I do this in
production, and I suspect I would have noticed if the niche
functionality of "routing" suddenly stopped working.

Maybe this document refers to the literal configuration of a /31. But
I always configure them as point to points, as I mentioned before. But
there again, in the documentation, that ability is totally missing...
great.


I would 100% concur that Mikrotik documentation can be spotty.

That said, what you choose to do on your network is of course totally up 
to you.


Personally, I would not use MikroTik's /31 implementation in mine.

Re: [External] Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Hunter Fuller via NANOG]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:17 PM Bryan Holloway  wrote:
> https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ROS/Routing+Protocol+Overview
>
> Ping across? Sure. Ok. But I wouldn't rely on it for anything critical.

Well that's certainly interesting.
You will not see me sticking up for MikroTik's documentation, ever. I
don't think the table reflects the reality of ROS 7, there's even a
note that "Routed traffic does not work to odd address" in one
version. I know that to be false, because, well, I do this in
production, and I suspect I would have noticed if the niche
functionality of "routing" suddenly stopped working.

Maybe this document refers to the literal configuration of a /31. But
I always configure them as point to points, as I mentioned before. But
there again, in the documentation, that ability is totally missing...
great.

-- 
Hunter Fuller (they)
Router Jockey
VBH M-1C
+1 256 824 5331

Office of Information Technology
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Network Engineering

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, richey goldberg  said:
> They support /31s and have for some time.   The trick we found is that the 
> Mikrotik has to be the higher numbered IP and network address has to be the 
> lower

I would not classify that as "support /31s" - that's "there's a
work-around that handles 50% of cases".  Can you have two Mikrotiks
connected to each other with a /31?  If not, they don't support using
/31s.

-- 
Chris Adams 

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)]

And what are they going to do when 240/4 runs out?

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[richey goldberg]

They support /31s and have for some time.   The trick we found is that the 
Mikrotik has to be the higher numbered IP and network address has to be the 
lower

add address=x.x.x.61/31 interface=ether1--dia network=x.x.x.60

Then point your default route at the lower numbered IP in the /31.


-richey


From: NANOG  on behalf of 
Bryan Holloway 
Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 11:05 AM
To: NANOG list 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
Let me know when they support /31s.


On 2/13/24 08:07, Dave Taht wrote:
> And routerOS is one of
> the more up to date platforms.

RE: The Reg does 240/4

[Tony Wicks]

I use a CCR2004 at home as it's one of the only devices that could handle
the 4Gb/s XGS-PON on pppoe. I've got an IPoE GPON (1000/500) failover, v4/v6
dual stack everywhere, incoming vpn and ipsec tunnels to other MT's and it
run's great. The only problem I have run into is if you run the 10G ports at
2.5G the buffering is a complete bust, so I have had to put cheap
10G/2.5G/1G switches in between the MT and 2.5G clients to achieve proper
performance. Oh, and some custom cooling fans as it gets a bit noisy once
the 10GBASET SFP's heat things up.

-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Tim Howe
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 6:05 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

That's very disappointing.

I acquired a Mikrotik L009 router to play with recently, and it's been one
let-down after another; now this.

--TimH

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Tim Howe]

That's disappointing.

Thanks for the info.  What a strange thing to not support.

--TimH

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 19:17:03 +0100
Bryan Holloway  wrote:

> Folks have been known to kludge around it, but it is not officially 
> supported by ROS, not even in v7. To wit:
> 
> https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ROS/Routing+Protocol+Overview
> 
> Ping across? Sure. Ok. But I wouldn't rely on it for anything critical.
> 
> Caveat emptor.
> 
> 
> On 2/13/24 18:43, Tim Howe wrote:
> > So, just FYI, we just tested a /31 on Eth1 of the L009 and it
> > seems to work fine(?)
> > 
> > --TimH
> > 
> > On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:04:50 -0800
> > Tim Howe  wrote:
> >   
> >> That's very disappointing.
> >>
> >> I acquired a Mikrotik L009 router to play with recently, and it's been one
> >> let-down after another; now this.
> >>
> >> --TimH
> >>
> >> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:04:45 +0100
> >> Bryan Holloway  wrote:
> >>  
> >>> Let me know when they support /31s.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2/13/24 08:07, Dave Taht wrote:  
>  And routerOS is one of
>  the more up to date platforms.  
> >   

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Bryan Holloway]

Folks have been known to kludge around it, but it is not officially 
supported by ROS, not even in v7. To wit:


https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ROS/Routing+Protocol+Overview

Ping across? Sure. Ok. But I wouldn't rely on it for anything critical.

Caveat emptor.


On 2/13/24 18:43, Tim Howe wrote:

So, just FYI, we just tested a /31 on Eth1 of the L009 and it
seems to work fine(?)

--TimH

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:04:50 -0800
Tim Howe  wrote:


That's very disappointing.

I acquired a Mikrotik L009 router to play with recently, and it's been one
let-down after another; now this.

--TimH

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:04:45 +0100
Bryan Holloway  wrote:


Let me know when they support /31s.


On 2/13/24 08:07, Dave Taht wrote:

And routerOS is one of
the more up to date platforms.

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Tim Howe]

So, just FYI, we just tested a /31 on Eth1 of the L009 and it
seems to work fine(?)

--TimH

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:04:50 -0800
Tim Howe  wrote:

> That's very disappointing.
> 
> I acquired a Mikrotik L009 router to play with recently, and it's been one
> let-down after another; now this.
> 
> --TimH
> 
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:04:45 +0100
> Bryan Holloway  wrote:
> 
> > Let me know when they support /31s.
> > 
> > 
> > On 2/13/24 08:07, Dave Taht wrote:  
> > > And routerOS is one of
> > > the more up to date platforms.

Re: [External] Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Hunter Fuller via NANOG]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:05 AM Bryan Holloway  wrote:
> Let me know when they support /31s.

A /31 is configured in RouterOS as a point-to-point interface. You put
your IP in the "address" field and their IP in the "network" field.

That's how I've been doing it since I started using RouterOS in 2014.
I can't speak to versions that predate that.

HTH

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Ryan Hamel]

Tim,

How is that Mikrotik a let down?

Ryan


From: NANOG  on behalf of Tim Howe 

Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 12:04:50 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when 
clicking links or opening attachments.


That's very disappointing.

I acquired a Mikrotik L009 router to play with recently, and it's been one
let-down after another; now this.

--TimH

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:04:45 +0100
Bryan Holloway  wrote:

> Let me know when they support /31s.
>
>
> On 2/13/24 08:07, Dave Taht wrote:
> > And routerOS is one of
> > the more up to date platforms.

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Tim Howe]

That's very disappointing.

I acquired a Mikrotik L009 router to play with recently, and it's been one
let-down after another; now this.

--TimH

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:04:45 +0100
Bryan Holloway  wrote:

> Let me know when they support /31s.
> 
> 
> On 2/13/24 08:07, Dave Taht wrote:
> > And routerOS is one of
> > the more up to date platforms.  

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:03 AM Christopher Hawker  wrote:
> [Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on
> AusNOG, SANOG and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers
> to engage in the discussion on their respective forums.]

Chris,

Do not cross-post lists. Many of the folks who want to discuss are
only subscribed to one of the lists and thus cannot post to the
others. This inevitably results in a disjoint and confusing set of
posts with replies to messages for which the originals didn't make it
to the local list. If you want to discuss something on multiple lists
with multiple audiences, start a separate discussion on each.

Honestly, how can you not know this. It's only been mailing list
etiquette for decades.


> we feel it is appropriate for this space to be reclassified as
> Unicast space available for delegation by IANA/PTI to RIRs
> on behalf of ICANN.

That is probably unrealistic. Getting 240/4 reclassified as unicast is
at least plausible. As you say, there's no residual value in
continuing to hold it in reserve. The opportunity cost has fallen near
zero. But before anybody with a clue is willing to see it allocated to
RIRs for general Internet use they'll want to see studies and
experiments which demonstrate that it's usable enough on the public
Internet to be usefully deployed there.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Bryan Holloway]

Let me know when they support /31s.


On 2/13/24 08:07, Dave Taht wrote:

And routerOS is one of
the more up to date platforms.

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Stephen Satchell]

On 2/12/24 11:07 PM, Dave Taht wrote:

if I could use the controversy to talk to why it has been so hard to
deploy ipv6 to the edge and how to fix that problem instead rather
than triggering people, it would be helpful.


1.  My provider, AT, keeps saying "we don't support IPv6."  I've 
written about my years-long effort to get my web server to speak IPv6 
over AT fiber.  I finally broke through when I was forced to upgrade 
to business service, and started receiving a better grade of technical 
support.


2.  I have a DNS  record for my web server.  Looking at yesterday's 
access log for SSL, I've had exactly five (5) accesses from two IPv6 
addresses.  Earlier in the month, I found a couple of search engines 
found the IPv6 side of the web server.


3.  I cannot obtain a PTR record for IPv6, so the mail server is a no-go 
because I won't be able to accomplish the minimum effort required for 
major players to recognize my mail server as valid.  My mail server is, 
except for port 25, LAN only.  Haven't run into any IPv6-only mail 
servers, based on the logs.


4.  My new IPv6-aware edge router firewall is in development.  This 
firewall, using NFT, will still NAT uplink IPv4 connections. It will not 
forward new connections from WAN to LAN over a defined subnet of IPv6; 
equipment on the LAN will be assigned IPv6 addresses from that subnet. 
Frankly, I'm not fast-tracking this work because I don't feel blocked by 
not having IPv6 connectivity.


It feels like IPv6 has Second Product Syndrome, where everything but the 
kitchen sink was thrown into it.

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Tom Beecher]

>
> Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This
> won't be easy to accomplish and it will take some time.


 It won't ever be 'accomplished' by trying to debate this in the media.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:05 AM Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> [Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on AusNOG,
> SANOG and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers to engage in the
> discussion on their respective forums.]
>
> Just to shed some light on the article and our involvement...
>
> Since September 1981, 240/4 has been reserved for future use, see
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml.
> This space has always been reserved for future use and given the global
> shortage of available space for new network operators we feel it is
> appropriate for this space to be reclassified as Unicast space available
> for delegation by IANA/PTI to RIRs on behalf of ICANN.
>
> At present, the IP space currently available for RIRs to delegate to new
> members is minimal, if any at all. The primary goal of our call for change
> is to afford smaller players who are wanting to enter the industry the
> opportunity to do so without having to shell out the big dollars for space.
> Although I do not agree with IP space being treated as a commodity (as this
> was not what it was intended to be), those who can afford to purchase space
> may do so and those who cannot should be able to obtain space from their
> respective RIR without having to wait over a year in some cases just to
> obtain space. It's not intended to flood the market with resources that can
> be sold off to the highest bidder, and this can very well be a way for
> network operators to plan to properly roll out IPv6. At this point in time,
> the uptake and implementation of IPv6 is far too low (only 37% according to
> https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6) for new networks to deploy IPv6
> single-stack, meaning that we need to continue supporting IPv4 deployments.
>
> The reallocation of IPv4 space marked as Future Use would not restrict or
> inhibit the deployment of IPv6, if anything, in our view it will help the
> deployment through allowing these networks to service a greater number of
> customers than what a single /24 v4 prefix will allow. Entire regions of an
> economy have the potential to be serviced by a single /23 IPv4 prefix when
> used in conjunction with IPv6 space.
>
> Now, some have argued that we should not do anything with IPv4 and simply
> let it die out. IPv4 will be around for the foreseeable future and while it
> is, we need to allow new operators to continue deploying networks. It is
> unfair of us to say "Let's all move towards IPv6 and just let IPv4 die"
> however the reality of the situation is that while we continue to treat it
> as a commodity and allow v6 uptake to progress as slowly as it is, we need
> to continue supporting it v4. Some have also argued that networks use this
> space internally within their infrastructure. 240/4 was always marked as
> Reserved for Future Use and if network operators elect to squat on reserved
> space instead of electing to deploy v6 across their internal networks then
> that is an issue they need to resolve, and it should not affect how it is
> reallocated. It goes against the bottom-up approach of policy development
> by allowing larger network operators to state that this space cannot be
> made unicast because they are using it internally (even though it's not
> listed in RFC1918), and its reallocation would affect their networks.
>
> In the APNIC region, there is a policy which only allows for a maximum of
> a /23 IPv4 prefix to be allocated/assigned to new members and any more
> space required must be acquired through other means. If (as an example)
> APNIC were to receive 3 x /8 prefixes from the 240/4 space this would allow
> for delegations to be made for approximately the next ~50 years whereas if
> policy was changed to allow for delegations up to and including a /22 this
> would extend the current pool by well over 20 years, based on current
> exhaustion rates and allowing for pool levels to return to pre-2010 levels.
>
> Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This
> won't be easy to accomplish and it will take some time. However, if we do
> nothing then nothing will happen. The currently available pool has reached
> severe exhaustion levels yet we have a block representing about 6% of the
> total possible IP space which may not seem like a lot yet it can go a long
> way.
>
> This call for change is not about making space available for existing
> networks. It is about new networks emerging into and on the internet. While
> we do work towards IPv6 being the primary addressing method we need to
> continue allow those who may not be able to deploy IPv6 to connect to the
> internet.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
>
> --
> *From:* NANOG  on behalf of
> 

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christopher Hawker]

Hello all,

[Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on AusNOG, SANOG 
and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers to engage in the discussion on 
their respective forums.]

Just to shed some light on the article and our involvement...

Since September 1981, 240/4 has been reserved for future use, see 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml. 
This space has always been reserved for future use and given the global 
shortage of available space for new network operators we feel it is appropriate 
for this space to be reclassified as Unicast space available for delegation by 
IANA/PTI to RIRs on behalf of ICANN.

At present, the IP space currently available for RIRs to delegate to new 
members is minimal, if any at all. The primary goal of our call for change is 
to afford smaller players who are wanting to enter the industry the opportunity 
to do so without having to shell out the big dollars for space. Although I do 
not agree with IP space being treated as a commodity (as this was not what it 
was intended to be), those who can afford to purchase space may do so and those 
who cannot should be able to obtain space from their respective RIR without 
having to wait over a year in some cases just to obtain space. It's not 
intended to flood the market with resources that can be sold off to the highest 
bidder, and this can very well be a way for network operators to plan to 
properly roll out IPv6. At this point in time, the uptake and implementation of 
IPv6 is far too low (only 37% according to https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6) 
for new networks to deploy IPv6 single-stack, meaning that we need to continue 
supporting IPv4 deployments.

The reallocation of IPv4 space marked as Future Use would not restrict or 
inhibit the deployment of IPv6, if anything, in our view it will help the 
deployment through allowing these networks to service a greater number of 
customers than what a single /24 v4 prefix will allow. Entire regions of an 
economy have the potential to be serviced by a single /23 IPv4 prefix when used 
in conjunction with IPv6 space.

Now, some have argued that we should not do anything with IPv4 and simply let 
it die out. IPv4 will be around for the foreseeable future and while it is, we 
need to allow new operators to continue deploying networks. It is unfair of us 
to say "Let's all move towards IPv6 and just let IPv4 die" however the reality 
of the situation is that while we continue to treat it as a commodity and allow 
v6 uptake to progress as slowly as it is, we need to continue supporting it v4. 
Some have also argued that networks use this space internally within their 
infrastructure. 240/4 was always marked as Reserved for Future Use and if 
network operators elect to squat on reserved space instead of electing to 
deploy v6 across their internal networks then that is an issue they need to 
resolve, and it should not affect how it is reallocated. It goes against the 
bottom-up approach of policy development by allowing larger network operators 
to state that this space cannot be made unicast because they are using it 
internally (even though it's not listed in RFC1918), and its reallocation would 
affect their networks.

In the APNIC region, there is a policy which only allows for a maximum of a /23 
IPv4 prefix to be allocated/assigned to new members and any more space required 
must be acquired through other means. If (as an example) APNIC were to receive 
3 x /8 prefixes from the 240/4 space this would allow for delegations to be 
made for approximately the next ~50 years whereas if policy was changed to 
allow for delegations up to and including a /22 this would extend the current 
pool by well over 20 years, based on current exhaustion rates and allowing for 
pool levels to return to pre-2010 levels.

Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This won't 
be easy to accomplish and it will take some time. However, if we do nothing 
then nothing will happen. The currently available pool has reached severe 
exhaustion levels yet we have a block representing about 6% of the total 
possible IP space which may not seem like a lot yet it can go a long way.

This call for change is not about making space available for existing networks. 
It is about new networks emerging into and on the internet. While we do work 
towards IPv6 being the primary addressing method we need to continue allow 
those who may not be able to deploy IPv6 to connect to the internet.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker


From: NANOG  on behalf of Jay R. 
Ashworth 
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 5:19 PM
To: North American Operators' Group 
Subject: The Reg does 240/4

I know we had a thread on this last month, but I can't remember what it
was titled.

ElReg has done a civilian-level backgrounder on the 240/4 issue, for anyone
who wants to read and scoff at it.  :-)

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Dave Taht]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:18 AM Jay R. Ashworth  wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Dave Taht" 
>
> > The angst around ipv6 on hackernews that this triggered was pretty
> > revealing and worth thinking about independently.
> > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39316266
>
> Thanks; the source where I got the other link mentioned that, and I meant
> to include it...
>
> > I was inspired to try a couple traceroutes. It used to be 240 escaped
> > my prior comcast router and wandered around a while; it does not do
> > that anymore. I would be dryly amused if that box was actually running
> > my old OpenWrt bcp38 stuff which blocked 240 for a couple years. My
> > cloud works, my aws stack works, openwrt works.
>
> Damn; I haven't touched the bcp38 wiki in some time.

In what way do you plan to touch it?

> Thanks for the reminder.

The bcp38 code for OpenWrt was not updated in light of the nftables
switch, as of a few years ago, but I have not looked at it in a long
time. Maybe someone else fixed it. I have not been doing much
development.

As it is bcp38 needs to be applied carefully by an ISP given the
sordid mess of other rfc1918 addresses along the path nowadays.

I doubt it is a good idea for consumer devices anymore. I liked the
side-effects of running it then tho, stopping random worms for chewing
up my external bandwidth. (the code was not just bcp38 related)

A plug - that I have NO IDEA made it into other ipv6 implementations -
is that we put ipv6 source specific routing into the OpenWrt stack to
elegantly make bcp38-like behavior the default there, back in 2013.

ip route add :: from my:ipv6:address:ranges/mask dest:addr:of:your:choice.

And also made the idea work in babel and ISIS to help with poor man´s
multihoming.

Most distro kernels I have seen lately do not seem to support "from" anymore.

>
> > Peering into a murky crystal ball, say, 5 years in the future:
> >
> > Another thing that I worry about is port space exhaustion, which is
> > increasingly a thing on firewalls and CGNs. If I can distract you - in
> > this blog cloudflare attempted to cut the number of ipv4 addresses
> > they use from 2 to 1, after observing some major retry issues. With a
> > nice patch, reducing the problem.
> >
> > https://blog.cloudflare.com/linux-transport-protocol-port-selection-performance/
>
> Interesting.  Isn't that something CGNAT implementers would have had to deal 
> with
> already?

I do not know of a single CGNAT that gives an operator a report on syn
retries, and thus exhaustion is hidden by the native retry behaviors
of the host stacks. Is there one?

The cloudflare work seems helpful here.

>
> > Peering further into the soi-distant decades ahead, perhaps we should
> > just allocate all the remaining protocol space in the IP header to a
> > quic native protocol, and start retiring the old ones.
>
> Well, I've been able to avoid thinking about it for some time, but ISTR my
> reaction to QUIC as violating a number of organized religions' blasphemy
> rules...
>
> > /me hides
>
> Indeed.

I enjoy being offline ever the more, these days. The internet
addiction level out there has become rather depressing.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7162457657210044416/


>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   
> j...@baylink.com
> Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274



-- 
40 years of net history, a couple songs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Jay R. Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Dave Taht" 

> The angst around ipv6 on hackernews that this triggered was pretty
> revealing and worth thinking about independently.
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39316266

Thanks; the source where I got the other link mentioned that, and I meant
to include it...

> I was inspired to try a couple traceroutes. It used to be 240 escaped
> my prior comcast router and wandered around a while; it does not do
> that anymore. I would be dryly amused if that box was actually running
> my old OpenWrt bcp38 stuff which blocked 240 for a couple years. My
> cloud works, my aws stack works, openwrt works.

Damn; I haven't touched the bcp38 wiki in some time.  Thanks for the reminder.

> Peering into a murky crystal ball, say, 5 years in the future:
> 
> Another thing that I worry about is port space exhaustion, which is
> increasingly a thing on firewalls and CGNs. If I can distract you - in
> this blog cloudflare attempted to cut the number of ipv4 addresses
> they use from 2 to 1, after observing some major retry issues. With a
> nice patch, reducing the problem.
> 
> https://blog.cloudflare.com/linux-transport-protocol-port-selection-performance/

Interesting.  Isn't that something CGNAT implementers would have had to deal 
with
already?

> Peering further into the soi-distant decades ahead, perhaps we should
> just allocate all the remaining protocol space in the IP header to a
> quic native protocol, and start retiring the old ones.

Well, I've been able to avoid thinking about it for some time, but ISTR my 
reaction to QUIC as violating a number of organized religions' blasphemy 
rules...

> /me hides

Indeed.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Dave Taht]

The angst around ipv6 on hackernews that this triggered was pretty
revealing and worth thinking about independently.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39316266

In the tik world, people are struggling to deploy ipv6 as even linux
kernel 5.7 in routerOS 7.XX still has some needed missing features. It
also appears 240 ain´t working there, either. And routerOS is one of
the more up to date platforms.

if I could use the controversy to talk to why it has been so hard to
deploy ipv6 to the edge and how to fix that problem instead rather
than triggering people, it would be helpful.

...

I was inspired to try a couple traceroutes. It used to be 240 escaped
my prior comcast router and wandered around a while; it does not do
that anymore. I would be dryly amused if that box was actually running
my old OpenWrt bcp38 stuff which blocked 240 for a couple years. My
cloud works, my aws stack works, openwrt works.

My comcast ipv6 connection is LOVELY - ssh stays nailed up for days. I
still reflexively use mosh because it survives me moving from AP to
AP.

I do wish there was some way I could escape the painful policy debate
and just focus on the code-related problems. (my position is basically
that all new devices not waste cycles blocking the 240 and 0/8 ranges,
and merely it move it from reserved for bezos^H^H^H^H^Hfuture use to
unicast and recognize deployed reality).

Peering into a murky crystal ball, say, 5 years in the future:

Another thing that I worry about is port space exhaustion, which is
increasingly a thing on firewalls and CGNs. If I can distract you - in
this blog cloudflare attempted to cut the number of ipv4 addresses
they use from 2 to 1, after observing some major retry issues. With a
nice patch, reducing the problem.

https://blog.cloudflare.com/linux-transport-protocol-port-selection-performance/

Their problems remain the same if they also just use one ipv6 address
(which would be silly, of course). QUIC is going to make this worse.

In there, they mention udp-lite, but don´t mention that this protocol
has worked for over a decade, and has all this unallocated port space.
Firewalling and natting it is easy.

Peering further into the soi-distant decades ahead, perhaps we should
just allocate all the remaining protocol space in the IP header to a
quic native protocol, and start retiring the old ones.

/me hides

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 1:21 AM Jay R. Ashworth  wrote:
>
> I know we had a thread on this last month, but I can't remember what it
> was titled.
>
> ElReg has done a civilian-level backgrounder on the 240/4 issue, for anyone
> who wants to read and scoff at it.  :-)
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/09/240_4_ipv4_block_activism/
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
>
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   
> j...@baylink.com
> Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274



-- 
40 years of net history, a couple songs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christopher Hawker]

Hey there Jay,

It's certainly going to make for a good discussion at APRICOT in a few weeks :-)

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

From: NANOG  on behalf of Jay R. 
Ashworth 
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 5:19 PM
To: North American Operators' Group 
Subject: The Reg does 240/4

I know we had a thread on this last month, but I can't remember what it
was titled.

ElReg has done a civilian-level backgrounder on the 240/4 issue, for anyone
who wants to read and scoff at it.  :-)

https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/09/240_4_ipv4_block_activism/

Cheers,
-- jra

--
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274