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

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

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> To: "Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta com>, 
William Herrin <bill () herrin us> Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org> Subject: Re: 
202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Message-ID: 
<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> 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-03
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-deshpande-intarea-ipaddress-reclassification

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-wilson-class-e

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fuller-240space-02
https://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.

------------------------------


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