Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Christopher Hawker <chris () thesysadmin au>]

Hi Tom,

I'm not too sure I understand where the idea came from that 2 x /8 would
only last one year. APNIC received their final allocation of the 103/8
prefix from ICANN/IANA on 03 February 2011, and commenced delegating space
from the prefix on 18 April 2011. With the right policies in place, it can
be well and truly extended.

Looking at an APNIC Blog article authored by Guangliang Pan on 09 October
2023 (https://blog.apnic.net/2023/10/09/nearing-the-end-of-103-8/), as of
the time the article was written there were 121 available /24 prefixes from
the 103/8 pool still available. Not a great deal in the grand scheme of
things, however, it demonstrates that policy works in preserving what
finite resources we have left, and that a 2 x /8 will last a lot longer
than one year.

I could say the same, that 2 x /8 lasting a little more than a year is an
extremely remote and highly unlikely assumption. Bear in mind that APNIC
policy was changed 1/2 way through to drop 103/8 delegations from a /22 to
a /23. Based on this, 65,536 x /23 delegations can be made to new members
and as Peter said, if post-exhaustion policy is applied to 240/4 it'll go
an extremely long way.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker



On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 04:26, Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:

> Christopher-
>
> Reclassifying this space, would add 10+ years onto the free pool for each
> > RIR. Looking at the APNIC free pool, I would estimate there is about 1/6th
> > of a /8 pool available for delegation, another 1/6th reserved.
> > Reclassification would see available pool volumes return to pre-2010 levels.
>
> Citing Nick Hilliard from another reply, this is an incorrect statement.
>
> on this point: prior to RIR depletion, the annual global run-rate on /8s
> > measured by IANA was ~13 per annum. So that suggests that 240/4 would
> > provide a little more than 1Y of consumption, assuming no demand
> > back-pressure, which seems an unlikely assumption.
>
> I share Dave's views, I would like to see 240/4 reclassified as unicast
> > space and 2 x /8s delegated to each RIR with the /8s for AFRINIC to be held
> > until their issues have been resolved.
>
> This has been discussed at great length at IETF. The consensus on the
> question has been consistent for many years now; doing work to free up
> 12-ish months of space doesn't make much sense when IPv6 exists, along with
> plenty of transition/translation mechanisms. Unless someone is able to
> present new arguments that change the current consensus, it's not going to
> happen.
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 5:54 AM Christopher Hawker <chris () thesysadmin au>
> wrote:
>
> > There really is no reason for 240/4 to remain "reserved". I share Dave's
> > views, I would like to see 240/4 reclassified as unicast space and 2 x /8s
> > delegated to each RIR with the /8s for AFRINIC to be held until their
> > issues have been resolved.
> >
> > Reclassifying this space, would add 10+ years onto the free pool for each
> > RIR. Looking at the APNIC free pool, I would estimate there is about 1/6th
> > of a /8 pool available for delegation, another 1/6th reserved.
> > Reclassification would see available pool volumes return to pre-2010 levels.
> >
> > https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/ipv4-exhaustion/
> >
> > In the IETF draft that was co-authored by Dave as part of the IPv4
> > Unicast Extensions Project, a very strong case was presented to convert
> > this space.
> >
> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240-00.html
> >
> > Regards,
> > Christopher Hawker
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 20:40, Dave Taht <dave.taht () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 11:06 AM Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:
> > > > > There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain
> > > > > assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled
> > > with
> > > > > a header that defines ..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course correct. It really depends on the vendor / software /
> > > versions in an environment. A lot of vendors removed that years ago,
> > > because frankly a lot of large networks have been using 240/4 as pseudo
> > > RFC1918 for years. Others have worked with smaller vendors and open source
> > > projects to do the same.
> > > > It's consistently a topic in the debates about 240/4 reclassification.
> > >
> > > There's debates still? I gave up. After making 240/4 and 0/8 work
> > > across all of linux and BSD and all the daemons besides bird (which
> > > refused the patch , I took so much flack that I decided I would just
> > > work on other things. So much of that flack was BS - like if you kill
> > > the checks in the OS the world will end - that didn't happen. Linux
> > > has had these two address ranges just work for over 5 years now.
> > >
> > > 240/4 is intensely routable and actually used in routers along hops
> > > inside multiple networks today, but less so as a destination.
> > >
> > > I would really like, one day, to see it move from reserved to unicast
> > > status, officially. I would have loved it if 0/8 was used by a space
> > > RIR, behind CGNAT, for starters, but with a plan towards making it
> > > routable. I am not holding my breath.
> > >
> > > The principal accomplishment of the whole unicast extensions project
> > > was to save a nanosecond across all the servers in the world on every
> > > packet by killing the useless 0/8 check. That patch paid for itself
> > > the first weekend after that linux kernel deployed. It is the
> > > simplest, most elegant, and most controversial patch I have ever
> > > written.
> > >
> > > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20430096
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:45 AM Michael Butler <
> > > imb () protected-networks net> wrote:
> > > > > On 1/10/24 10:12, Tom Beecher wrote:
> > > > > > Karim-
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please be cautious about this advice, and understand the full
> > > context.
> > > > > > 240/4 is still classified as RESERVED space. While you would
> > > certainly
> > > > > > be able to use it on internal networks if your equipment supports
> > > it,
> > > > > > you cannot use it as publicly routable space. There have been many
> > > > > > proposals over the years to reclassify 240/4, but that has not
> > > happened,
> > > > > > and is unlikely to at any point in the foreseeable future.
> > > > >
> > > > > While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in a private
> > > > > setting, using them might also be .. a challenge.
> > > > >
> > > > > There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain
> > > > > assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled
> > > with
> > > > > a header that defines ..
> > > > >
> > > > > #define IN_BADCLASS(i)  (((in_addr_t)(i) & 0xf0000000) == 0xf0000000)
> > > > >
> > > > >         Michael
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 40 years of net history, a couple songs:
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E
> > > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos