Re: The Reg does 240/4

--000000000000cfe505061144228e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>
> 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=E2=80=AFAM Christopher Hawker <chris@thesysadm=
in.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.xh=
tml.
> 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 chang=
e
> 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 spac=
e.
> Although I do not agree with IP space being treated as a commodity (as th=
is
> was not what it was intended to be), those who can afford to purchase spa=
ce
> 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 c=
an
> 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 tim=
e,
> 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 deployment=
s.
>
> 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 whe=
n
> 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 i=
t
> as a commodity and allow v6 uptake to progress as slowly as it is, we nee=
d
> to continue supporting it v4. Some have also argued that networks use thi=
s
> space internally within their infrastructure. 240/4 was always marked as
> Reserved for Future Use and if network operators elect to squat on reserv=
ed
> space instead of electing to deploy v6 across their internal networks the=
n
> 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 all=
ow
> for delegations to be made for approximately the next ~50 years whereas i=
f
> policy was changed to allow for delegations up to and including a /22 thi=
s
> 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 level=
s.
>
> 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 reache=
d
> 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 lon=
g
> 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. Whi=
le
> 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 <[email protected]> on behalf =
of
> Jay R. Ashworth <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 13, 2024 5:19 PM
> *To:* North American Operators' Group <[email protected]>
> *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 anyo=
ne
> 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
> [email protected]
> 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
>

--000000000000cfe505061144228e
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px =
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span st=
yle=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontSe=
rvice,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px">Now, we know there&#39;s=
 definitely going to be some pushback on this. This won&#39;t be easy to ac=
complish and it will take some time.=C2=A0</span></blockquote><div><br></di=
v><div>=C2=A0It won&#39;t ever be &#39;accomplished&#39; by trying to debat=
e this in the media.</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"=
ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:05=E2=80=AFAM Christoph=
er Hawker &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]<=
/a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><=
div class=3D"msg935451592040630257">




<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Cali=
bri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Hello all,</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Cali=
bri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Cali=
bri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
[Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on AusNOG, SAN=
OG and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers to engage in the discussion=
 on their respective forums.]</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Cali=
bri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Cali=
bri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Just to shed some light on the article and our involvement...</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Cali=
bri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div><span style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontServic=
e,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Since Septe=
mber 1981, 240/4 has been reserved for future use, see
<a href=3D"https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address=
-space.xhtml" id=3D"m_935451592040630257OWAbafe4be0-dfff-4c40-6c55-ec1c8931=
a4af" target=3D"_blank">
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtm=
l</a>. This space has always been reserved for future use and given the glo=
bal shortage of available space for new network operators we feel it is app=
ropriate for this space to be reclassified
 as Unicast space available for delegation by IANA/PTI to RIRs on behalf=C2=
=A0of ICANN.</span></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Cali=
bri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div><span style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontServic=
e,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">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 affo=
rd 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 i=
n some cases just to obtain space.
 It&#39;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 oper=
ators 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 <a href=3D"https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6" i=
d=3D"m_935451592040630257LPlnk258986" target=3D"_blank">
https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6</a>)=C2=A0for new networks to deploy IPv6=
 single-stack, meaning that we need to continue supporting IPv4 deployments=
.</span></div>
<div><span style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontServic=
e,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontServic=
e,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">The realloc=
ation 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 t=
hrough allowing these networks to service a greater number of customers tha=
n 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.</span><=
/div>
<div><span style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontServic=
e,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontServic=
e,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Now, some h=
ave argued that we should not do anything with IPv4 and simply let it die
 out. IPv4 will be around for the foreseeable=C2=A0future and while it is, =
we need to allow new operators to continue deploying networks. It is unfair=
 of us to say &quot;Let&#39;s all move towards IPv6 and just let IPv4 die&q=
uot; 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 argue=
d 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 i=
nstead 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 realloca=
ted. It goes against the bottom-up
 approach of policy development by allowing larger network operators to sta=
te that this space cannot be made unicast because they are using it interna=
lly (even though it&#39;s not listed in RFC1918), and its reallocation woul=
d affect their networks.</span></div>
<div><span style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontServic=
e,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontServic=
e,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">In the APNI=
C 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 rec=
eive 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 t=
o and including a /22 this would extend the current pool by well over 20 ye=
ars, based on current exhaustion rates and allowing for pool levels to retu=
rn to pre-2010 levels.</span></div>
<div><span style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontServic=
e,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontServic=
e,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Now, we kno=
w there&#39;s definitely going to be some pushback on this. This won&#39;t =
be easy
 to accomplish and it will take some time. However, if we do nothing then n=
othing will happen. The currently available pool has reached severe exhaust=
ion 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.</span></div>
<div><span style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontServic=
e,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontServic=
e,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">This call f=
or 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 tow=
ards IPv6 being the primary addressing method we need to continue allow tho=
se who may not be able to deploy IPv6 to connect to the internet.</span></d=
iv>
<div><span style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontServic=
e,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontServic=
e,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Regards,</s=
pan></div>
<div><span style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontServic=
e,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Christopher=
 Hawker</span></div>
<div id=3D"m_935451592040630257appendonsend"></div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Cali=
bri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<hr style=3D"display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div id=3D"m_935451592040630257divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"fo=
nt-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><b>From:</b>=
=C2=A0NANOG &lt;nanog-bounces+chris=3D<a href=3D"mailto:thesysadmin.au@nano=
g.org" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>&gt; on behalf of Jay =
R. Ashworth &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">jra@ba=
ylink.com</a>&gt;<br>
<b>Sent:</b>=C2=A0Tuesday, February 13, 2024 5:19 PM<br>
<b>To:</b>=C2=A0North American Operators&#39; Group &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:n=
[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>&gt;<br>
<b>Subject:</b>=C2=A0The Reg does 240/4</span>
<div>=C2=A0</div>
</div>
<div><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">I know we had a thread on this last mon=
th, but I can&#39;t remember what it<br>
was titled.<br>
<br>
ElReg has done a civilian-level backgrounder on the 240/4 issue, for anyone=
<br>
who wants to read and scoff at it.=C2=A0 :-)<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/09/240_4_ipv4_block_activism=
/" id=3D"m_935451592040630257OWA90c20dbb-5e8f-7875-1393-2e384bf05835" targe=
t=3D"_blank">https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/09/240_4_ipv4_block_activi=
sm/</a><br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
-- jra<br>
<br>
--<br>
Jay R. Ashworth=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Baylink=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=
=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><br>
Designer=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 The Things I Think=
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 RFC 2100<br>
Ashworth &amp; Associates=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 <a href=3D"ht=
tp://www.bcp38.info" id=3D"m_935451592040630257OWAa9283bbf-1d91-7b87-c764-6=
743cb122ced" target=3D"_blank">
http://www.bcp38.info</a>=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0 2000 Land Rover DII<br>
St Petersburg FL USA=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 BCP38: Ask For It By Nam=
e!=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 +1 727 647 1=
274</span></div>
</div>

</div></blockquote></div>

--000000000000cfe505061144228e--