Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com>]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:43 AM Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org> wrote:

> Matthew Petach wrote on 11/01/2024 21:05:
> > I think that's a bit of an unfair categorization--we can't look at
> > pre-exhaustion demand numbers and extrapolate to post-exhaustion
> > allocations, given the difference in allocation policies pre-exhaustion
> > versus post-exhaustion.
>
> Matt,
>
> the demand for publicly-routable ipv4 addresses would be comparable to
> before, with the additional pressure of several years of pent-up demand.
>
> You're right to say that allocation policies could be different, but we
> had discussions about run-out policies in each RIR area in the late
> 2000s and each RIR community settled on particular sets of policies. I
> don't see that if an additional set of ipv4 address blocks were to fall
> out of the sky, that any future run-out policies would be much different
> to what we had before.
>
> So 240/4 might last a month, or a year, or two, or be different in each
> RIR service area, but it's not going to change anything fundamental
> here, or permanently move the dial: ipv4 will still be a scarce resource
> afterwards.
>
> Nick


Hi Nick,

I participated in many of those pre-exhaustion policy discussions at ARIN
meetings;
at the time, I thought a hard landing would motivate everyone to simply
shift to IPv6.

Having lived through the free-pool exhaustion, and discovered that the hard
landing
concept didn't get people to move to IPv6, it just made the battle for IPv4
resources
more cutthroat, I've come to rethink my earlier stances on NRPM updates.  I
suspect
I'm not the only one who sees things differently now, in a post-exhaustion
world with
no signs of IPv6 adoption crossing the nebulous tipping point any time soon.

In light of that, I strongly suspect that a second go-around at developing
more beneficial
post-exhaustion policies might turn out very differently than it did when
many of us were
naively thinking we understood how people would behave in a post-exhaustion
world.

If we limit every registrant to only what is necessary to support the
minimum level of
NAT'd connectivity for IPv4, we can stretch 240/4 out for decades to come.
You don't
need a *lot* of IPv4 space to run 464XLAT, for example, but you *do* need
at least a
small block of public IPv4 addresses to make the whole thing work.  If you
limit each
requesting organization to a /22 per year, we can keep the internet mostly
functional
for decades to come, well past the point where L*o has retired, and Android
starts
supporting DHCPv6.  ;)

But I agree--if we looked at 2000's era policies, 240/4 wouldn't last
long.  I just think
that many of us have matured a bit since then, and would vote differently
on updates
to the NRPM.  ^_^

Thanks!

Matt