Re: [OPSAWG] [OPS-AREA] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs

On 15Nov2010, at 12.48, David Conrad wrote:

> On Nov 14, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote:
>> I know.  I was trying to clear up if he meant 45/8 or 44/8.  
> 
> As I've indicated, I meant what I wrote (44/8).
> 
>> The problem with 44/8 is that it is in use in networks that may be connected to RG's.
> 
> RG's?

Residential gateways.

> 
> 44/8 is a legacy /8 that was allocated by Jon Postel for IP over ham radio (Jon made a few assignments based on layer 2 technology, 14/8 was IP over X.25, 24/8 was IP over CATV, and 44/8 was IP over ham radio).  I believe 44/8 is currently being announced by UCSD as part of an experiment -- I don't think this was the intended use of that /8.  A small random sampling of various looking glasses appear to show three (3) more specifics being announced (specifically, 44.16.15.0/24, 44.68.52.0/24, and 44.130.99.0/24). When I was at IANA we looked at trying to recover the full /8 (like we did with 14/8) but we were informed it would be infeasible. Since current policy forbids IANA from direct allocations and handing out anything longer than a /8 to the RIRs, it was left as is. 

> 
> In any event, as I mentioned previously, regardless of the merit of what you're proposing, it seems a bit unlikely you'll get sufficient consensus to have the IETF direct IANA to reserve another block for non-unique addressing.  This leaves folks interested in NAT444 with the options of:
> 
> a) telling their customers with equipment that can't be upgraded to go out and get new CPE

Technically great, career (and customer base) limiting - unless we ALL do it.

> b) having somebody go to one of the RIRs and get the space, then making that space NAT444 space for everybody (e.g., like what Microsoft did with 169.254.0.0/16)

Discussed already

> c) each going out to their respective RIRs and obtaining sufficient address space to cover their NAT444 needs

Wasteful

> d) everybody agreeing to choose an allocated but hopefully unused (for now and forever) on the Internet prefix, e.g., something that is known to be air-gapped.

Discussed

> e) getting a number of ham operators to dust off and renumber their KA9Q boxes (or whatever) into different prefixes in 44/8, perhaps via some sort of incentive if that's actually necessary

shifting really old networks is usually a recipe for disaster.  Would try and avois

> 
> "Choose wisely" -- Last Knight of the First Crusade

There is no wise choice here, it's just the least stupid one.

> 
> Regards,
> -drc
> 
> 
> 
> 

---
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here:
https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops