Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211210951.AYC

[Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuhnke () gmail com>]

In a theoretical scenario where somebody was global benevolent dictator of
ipv4 space, even applying a policy which limited block size to a few /14
per ISP, it would be possible to exhaust 240/4* in one week* if they handed
out /14 sized pieces to every existing last mile LTE network operator with
5+ million customers globally. It is not a long term solution or even a
good medium term solution.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 at 16:19, Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com> wrote:

> Eric,
>
> I appreciate your willingness to actual consider this rationally.
>
> Every facet of this debate has been fully aired on this forum (and
> others), numerous times.
>
> Allow me to pick it apart again. Apologies to those who are ad nausem.
>
> Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> > Option A) Spend engineering time and equipment purchases to implement
> > 240/4 as unicast globally. At present consumption rates and based on
> > the number of entities in ARIN, RIPE, APNIC regions that could
> > *immediately* take /18 to /16 sized blocks of it, please quantify
> > exactly how many years this amount of "new" IP space you predict to be
> > useful before once again reaching ipv4 exhaustion. End result: Problem
> > not solved. Thus my analogy of building a sand castle while the tide
> > is coming in.
> >
> > Option B) Spend engineering time and equipment purchases (yes, very
> > possibly much more time and more costly) to implement ipv6.
>
> This is know a false dichotomy. There is no actual reason to believe
> that any effort on option A detracts from available effort of option B.
> And when you purchase your new gear, or update the software, with its
> many many lines of code changes, it is not unreasonable to expect that
> at least some might be IPv4 related and that the removal of restriction
> on 240/4 would be the more trivial of those.
>
> Indeed that is exactly what has been happening since the initial
> proposals regarding 240/4. To the extent that it is now largely
> supported or available across a wide variety of gear, much of it not
> even modern in any way.
>
> Further, presentment of options in this fashion presumes that we have
> some ability to control or decide how engineering efforts across the
> entirety of the internet should be spent.
>
> Respectively, amusing and alarming.
>
> To be clear, the only thing preventing the Internet in freely organizing
> its own efforts is the unwillingness of curmudgeons to remove the
> reserved status in this particular instance.
>
> As no-one is requesting that you (or others of this persuasion) lend
> their personal efforts, your concern on the budgeting of efforts is out
> of place and worse, of dictatorial bend.
>
> For the sake of argument, ignoring above, presuming our control over the
> internet engineering efforts et al.
>
> Were I to propose to you that 240/4 be utilized only for new or existing
> organizations with less than /20 total resources or some other useful
> constraint, it would be easy to see that 240/4 would last a very long
> time and potentially have quite a significant impact.
>
> Earlier in this thread I contrasted a reduction from 12 to 1 of ip
> address consumption per new customer, depending on the practices
> employed by the service provider. As you can see, consumption rate is
> actually quite flexible, even now, today.
>
> So the answer to your question is it depends how freely it is handed
> out. Certainly not very long if it is business as usual prior to runout.
> Potentially much longer if not.
>
> And in a nod to your concern over effort expenditure, but even more so,
> conscious of 240/4 being the 32bit space last big easy gasp, I would be
> a strong proponent that it NOT be.
>
> However, even if it were, what exactly are we saving it for, if not for
> use by those who need it?
>
> Or is it to be a hedge over some eventuality where IPv6 has failed to
> the point of abandonment? I might actually respect that position, even
> as I doubt (and fear and hope against) such an eventualities actual
> occurrence.
>
> The more galling aspect of the 240/4 wars is that "it will take too long
> and then Ipv6 will be deployed" crowd that managed to stifle it
> initially continue to reuse that line again, in essence blase self
> perpetuation.
>
> Its only taking that long because of this attitude.
>
> Joe