Re: Will a single /27 get fully routed these days?

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Jan 26, 2014, at 00:39 , Sander Steffann <sander () steffann nl> wrote:

> Hi Owen,
>
> > > Same question… Will people adjust their filters, (even if only for that prefix)? All over the world? I think 'will 
> > > adjust their filters for XYZ' is highly optimistic, but let's hope it will work, otherwise the ISPs in the ARIN 
> > > region will have a problem. (Or maybe not: existing ISPs (for who a /2[4-8] is not a significant amount) might not 
> > > mind if a new competitors only gets a /2[5-8] that they cannot route globally. But I really hope it doesn't come to 
> > > that.)
> >
> > Realistically, anyone depending on IPv4 is going to has a growing problem which will only continue to grow.
>
> Yes, but those last IPv4 addresses are for ISPs who work with IPv6 and need a little bit of IPv4 to communicate with 
> the legacy world. If they can't even do that it will be extra hard (impossible?) for them to function.

Which is precisely why I authored that particular policy at the time.

> > > But more important: which /10 is set aside for this? It is not listed on 
> > > https://www.arin.net/knowledge/ip_blocks.html
> >
> > I'm not sure it has been determined yet, let alone announced.
>
> According to https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html phase one it should have been done in 
> September 2012: 'IPv4 address space required for NRPM 4.10, which sets aside a contiguous IPv4 /10 block to 
> facilitate IPv6 deployment, was reserved and removed from the remaining IPv4 address pool.'  I can't find anything 
> more specific though...

OK, then I'm sure it's been determined, but I can't really fault them for not announcing it yet.

> > > > Consider the possibility of a policy change which allows the transfer of smaller blocks (current ARIN policy 
> > > > limits this to /24 minimum, but ARIN policy is not immutable, we have a policy development process so that anyone 
> > > > who wants to can start the process of changing it.)
> > >
> > > I’m well aware of that, but I’ll stick to RIPE policies for now :-)
> >
> > I admit I'm not familiar with the details of the RIPE policy in this regard. Do they allow longer prefixes to be 
> > transferred and/or acquired?
>
> Allow: yes. Anybody doing that for globally routable purposes: no. Although it can be used for networks that don't 
> need to be in the global BGP table.
>
> > I will point out that the NA in NANOG mostly refers to the ARIN region.
>
> ??? No idea what this comment is supposed to mean. You may find this weird, but since the Internet is actually a 
> global network I do care about what happens in NA...

You made the comment that you would "...stick to RIPE...". I pointed out that ARIN was the RIR of record for most of 
the territory for which this list is focused.

Owen