Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christopher Hawker <chris () thesysadmin au>]

Hi Christian,

The idea to this is to allow new networks to emerge onto the internet, without potentially having to fork out 
substantial amounts of money.

I am of the view that networks large enough to require more than a /8 v4 for a private network, would be in the 
position to move towards IPv6-only. Meta has already achieved this 
(https://engineering.fb.com/2017/01/17/production-engineering/legacy-support-on-ipv6-only-infra/) by rolling out 
dual-stack on their existing nodes and enabling new nodes as IPv6-only. I cannot think of a bigger waste of resources 
that have the possibility of being publicly used, than to allocate an additional 16 x /8 to RFC1918 space.

The same argument could be had about using larger than a /8 for private networking. Why not use IPv6?

Regards,
Christopher Hawker
________________________________
From: Christian de Larrinaga <cdel () firsthand net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:51 PM
To: Christopher Hawker <chris () thesysadmin au>
Cc: Denis Fondras <xxnog () ledeuns net>; nanog () nanog org <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

excuse top posting -

I don't see a case for shifting 240/4 into public IP space if it is just
going to sustain the rentier sinecures of the existing IPv4
incumbencies. In other words if RIRs don't use it boost new entrants it
will just add another knot to the stranglehold we are in vis IPv4.

I can see a potential case for shifting it from experimental to private
space given the fact that "the rest of us" without public IP space and
natted behind CGNATs have taken to use IPv4 for wireguard, containers,
zero configs and so on, to tie our various locations, services and
applications together within our own private distributed nets and expose
our services for public consumption over IPv6.


C

Christian de Larrinaga


Christian Christopher Hawker <chris () thesysadmin au> writes

> Hi Denis,
>
> It will only be burned through if RIR communities change policies to allow for larger delegations than what is
> currently in place. I believe that some level of change is possible whilst limiting the exhaustion rate, e.g. allowing
> for delegations up to a maximum holding of a /22, however we shouldn't go crazy (for want of a better phrase)
> and allow for delegations of a /20, /19 etc.
>
> If this was only going to give us a potential 1-3 years' worth of space, then I would agree in saying that it is a 
> waste
> of time, would take far too long to make the space usable and wouldn't be worth it. However, as long as we don't
> get greedy, change the maximum allowed delegation to large delegations, and every Tom/Dick/Harry applying
> for a /16 allocation then 240/4 will last us a lengthy amount of time, at least a few decades.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris=thesysadmin.au () nanog org> on behalf of Denis Fondras via NANOG
> <nanog () nanog org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:10 PM
> To: nanog () nanog org <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
> Le Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 03:24:21PM -0800, David Conrad a écrit :
> > This doesn’t seem all that positive to me, particularly because it’s temporary
> > since the underlying problem (limited resource, unlimited demand) cannot be
> > addressed.
>
> I agree with this.
> Yet I am in favor of changing the status of 240/4, just so it can get burned
> fast, we stop this endless discussion and can start to deploy IPv6 again.
>
> Denis


--
Christian de Larrinaga