Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203141407.AYC

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

If you want to garner discussion or support for your draft RFC, it's
probably better to have that conversation via the appropriate IETF
channels.

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 2:43 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com> wrote:

> Hi, Fred:
>
> 0)    Thank you for a set of references.
>
> 1)    We cited only one IETF Draft (Wilson, et al.) among them, because it
> was the first and only one that clearly stated its limitation (Section 2.
> Caveats of Use). More importantly, it was written by three top APNIC
> officials. Later efforts on this topic have not introduced (based on my
> reading) any more essence to the topic.
>
> 2)    "...  I was there for those discussions, and I'm not sure how to put
> it more simply....   ":    With your knowledge of the past, you are
> uniquely qualified to critique on our work. However, it would be more
> expedient for everyone, if you could first read through at least the
> Abstract and the Conclusions of the EzIP IETF Draft, before commenting.
> This is because EzIP proposal is based on the same general idea as the
> references you cited, but with a slight extra step that produced a series
> of surprising results. In particular, we took the "Caveats" above to our
> hearts before proceeding. So, please put such issues behind you while
> reviewing our work. Thanks,
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2022-03-14 14:39)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 15
> Message: 17
> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 21:26:11 -0700
> From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf () gmail com> <fredbaker.ietf () gmail com>
> To: "Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta com> <aychen () avinta com>, William Herrin
>       <bill () herrin us> <bill () herrin us>
> Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org> <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock
> Message-ID: <79746DEC-8C8B-4D6D-B1D6-CB0A0003A1DC () gmail com> <79746DEC-8C8B-4D6D-B1D6-CB0A0003A1DC () gmail com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;     charset=us-ascii
>
> On Mar 12, 2022, at 8:15 AM, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com> <aychen () avinta com> wrote:
>
> 2)    On the other hand, there was a recent APNIC blog that specifically reminded us of a fairly formal request for 
> re-designating the 240/4 netblock back in 2008 (second grey background box). To me, this means whether to change the 
> 240/4 status is not an issue. The question is whether we can identify an application that can maximize its impact.
>
>     https://blog.apnic.net/2022/01/19/ip-addressing-in-2021/
>
> I think there might be value in reviewing the discussion of the related Internet Drafts
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-deshpande-intarea-ipaddress-reclassification-03https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-deshpande-intarea-ipaddress-reclassification
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-wilson-class-e
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fuller-240space-02https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-fuller-240space
>
> The walkaway I had from these discussions was that while changing the definition of the address space would allow 
> RIRs to sell more IPv4 address space for a few weeks (such as happened to APNIC when the last /8's were handed out), 
> there were not enough addresses in the identified pools to solve the address shortage. So it was in the end a fool's 
> errand. If you want to have address space to address the current shortage, you need an addressing architecture with 
> more addresses.
>
> I was there for those discussions, and I'm not sure how to put it more simply.
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
> <#m_-3820859315811704609_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>