Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

ARIN has been gutting IPv4 free-pool based policy left and right lately… Other RIRs have not been quite as aggressive, 
but have done some similar things. This, if for no other reason, makes it a bad idea to suddenly restore RIR IPv4 free 
pools.

Just my $0.02.

I’ve got as little power in the IETF as it’s possible to have, but I admit I do share in the consensus view that the 
effort spent writing up a plan for 240/4 would be better invested in deploying IPv6.

Owen


> On Jan 11, 2024, at 13:05, Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 9:29 AM Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc <mailto: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.
>
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> 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.
>
> If we limited ISPs to a single /22 of post-exhaustion space, with a minimum 1 year waiting period to come back to 
> request an additional /22, 240/4 would last a good long time.
> That aligns with ARIN's current NPRM initial allocation, post-exhaustion:
> 4.2.2. Initial Allocation to ISPs
> All ISP organizations without direct assignments or allocations from ARIN qualify for an initial allocation of up to 
> a /22, subject to ARIN’s minimum allocation size.
>
>
> If you already *have* existing IPv4 space, I would propose you be ineligible to apply to ARIN for space from within 
> 240/4; you already have a functioning business with some amount of IPv4 space, and can look at either trying to be 
> more efficient with what you have (more CG-NAT, renumber off public space for internal links, etc.), or participating 
> in the open market for IPv4 space transfers.
>
> 240/4 can be made to last a very long time, if we apply post-exhaustion rules, rather than allowing pre-exhaustion 
> demand curves to continue forward.
>
>
> > > 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. 
>
> The key difference is that IPv6-only doesn't (currently) work, transition/translation mechanisms require an entity to 
> have at least *some* IPv4 addresses to anchor their transition/translation mechanisms to, and we've created a 
> situation that presents significant barriers to entry for new applicants that existing entities don't face.  At some 
> point in the near future, I suspect governments will begin to look at the current ISP environment as anti-competitive 
> if we don't adjust our stance to ensure a fair and level playing field for new entrants as well as existing incumbent 
> providers.  I think we're going to need to ensure that new applicants are able to get their initial allocation of 
> space for the foreseeable future in order to fend off increasing regulatory pressure.  Adding space from 240/4 to the 
> initial-allocations-only pool would help ensure that.
>
>  
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 5:54 AM Christopher Hawker <chris () thesysadmin au <mailto: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
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matt
>