Reusable 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

["Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta com>]

Hi, Christopher:

1)    " ... I would like to see 240/4 reclassified as unicast space ... 
  ":

    We are in agreement with this first part.

2)    " ... 2 x /8s delegated to each RIR with the /8s for AFRINIC ...   ":

    This second part is not what EzIP is proposing, because it will run 
into the old trap of "quickly used up". Instead, 240/4 should be used to 
replace 100.64/10 in creating RANs (Regional Area Networks) that are the 
same as the existing CG-NAT clusters but 64 fold bigger. So that 240/4 
is reused worldwide like the RFC6598 netblocks, plus other possible 
benefits such as putting 100.64/10 back into the allocatable pool 
(Wasn't this pulled out of ARIN for worldwide use?) doing so, we do not 
have 240/4 exhaustion issue to consider.

Regards,

Abe (2024-01-11 23:40)



On 2024-01-11 05:54, Christopher Hawker wrote:
> There really is no reason for 240/4 to remain "reserved". I share 
> Dave's views, I would like to see 240/4 reclassified as unicast space 
> and 2 x /8s delegated to each RIR with the /8s for AFRINIC to be held 
> until their issues have been resolved.
>
> Reclassifying this space, would add 10+ years onto the free pool for 
> each RIR. Looking at the APNIC free pool, I would estimate there is 
> about 1/6th of a /8 pool available for delegation, another 1/6th 
> reserved. Reclassification would see available pool volumes return to 
> pre-2010 levels.
>
> https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/ipv4-exhaustion/
>
> In the IETF draft that was co-authored by Dave as part of the IPv4 
> Unicast Extensions Project, a very strong case was presented to 
> convert this space.
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240-00.html
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
>
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 20:40, Dave Taht <dave.taht () gmail com> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 11:06 AM Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>
>     wrote:
>     >>
>     >> There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain
>     >> assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been
>     compiled with
>     >> a header that defines ..
>     >
>     >
>     > Of course correct. It really depends on the vendor / software /
>     versions in an environment. A lot of vendors removed that years
>     ago, because frankly a lot of large networks have been using 240/4
>     as pseudo RFC1918 for years. Others have worked with smaller
>     vendors and open source projects to do the same.
>     >
>     > It's consistently a topic in the debates about 240/4
>     reclassification.
>
>     There's debates still? I gave up. After making 240/4 and 0/8 work
>     across all of linux and BSD and all the daemons besides bird (which
>     refused the patch , I took so much flack that I decided I would just
>     work on other things. So much of that flack was BS - like if you kill
>     the checks in the OS the world will end - that didn't happen. Linux
>     has had these two address ranges just work for over 5 years now.
>
>     240/4 is intensely routable and actually used in routers along hops
>     inside multiple networks today, but less so as a destination.
>
>     I would really like, one day, to see it move from reserved to unicast
>     status, officially. I would have loved it if 0/8 was used by a space
>     RIR, behind CGNAT, for starters, but with a plan towards making it
>     routable. I am not holding my breath.
>
>     The principal accomplishment of the whole unicast extensions project
>     was to save a nanosecond across all the servers in the world on every
>     packet by killing the useless 0/8 check. That patch paid for itself
>     the first weekend after that linux kernel deployed. It is the
>     simplest, most elegant, and most controversial patch I have ever
>     written.
>
>     https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20430096
>
>
>     >
>     > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:45 AM Michael Butler
>     <imb () protected-networks net> wrote:
>     >>
>     >> On 1/10/24 10:12, Tom Beecher wrote:
>     >> > Karim-
>     >> >
>     >> > Please be cautious about this advice, and understand the full
>     context.
>     >> >
>     >> > 240/4 is still classified as RESERVED space. While you would
>     certainly
>     >> > be able to use it on internal networks if your equipment
>     supports it,
>     >> > you cannot use it as publicly routable space. There have been
>     many
>     >> > proposals over the years to reclassify 240/4, but that has
>     not happened,
>     >> > and is unlikely to at any point in the foreseeable future.
>     >>
>     >> While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in a private
>     >> setting, using them might also be .. a challenge.
>     >>
>     >> There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain
>     >> assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been
>     compiled with
>     >> a header that defines ..
>     >>
>     >> #define IN_BADCLASS(i)  (((in_addr_t)(i) & 0xf0000000) ==
>     0xf0000000)
>     >>
>     >>         Michael
>     >>
>
>
>     -- 
>     40 years of net history, a couple songs:
>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E
>     Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com