Hi, Mark: 1) " ... known defective products ... ": Could you please define what do you mean? And, what "products" do you have in mind? Otherwise, this sounds like a scare tactic without a foundation. Regards, Abe (2022-03-17 11:32) ------------------------------ NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 19 Message: 35 Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 09:48:04 +1100 From: Mark Andrews<marka@isc.org> To: Owen DeLong<owen@delong.com> Cc: Sylvain Baya<abscoco@gmail.com>,bzs@theworld.com, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>,nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Message-ID:<1C6B1AD8-399E-4B3C-B3AD-A5C846F62925@isc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 It?s a business problem for the RIR?s. Selling / leasing known defective products is against lots of consumer law. -- Mark Andrews
On 17 Mar 2022, at 03:43, Owen DeLong<owen@delong.com> wrote:
?
On Mar 15, 2022, at 19:23 , Mark Andrews<marka@isc.org> wrote:
On 16 Mar 2022, at 02:54, Owen DeLong via NANOG<nanog@nanog.org> wrote: Having spent nearly 15 years on the ARIN Advisory Council, I think I?m able to claim some detailed knowledge on the subject.
In general, the RIRs themselves maintain neutrality about such things, looking to their respective communities for input on what to do. However, so long as the IETF and has not designated the space Unicast Address Space to be delegated to the RIRs for allocation/assignment, IANA will not delegate it to the RIRs and the RIRs won?t, therefore, delegate it to users.
If you really want to see this happen (and I still argue that the amount of effort already wasted discussing this idea vastly exceeds what would be needed towards IPv6 to get beyond caring about it), then the first step must be to convince the IETF to designate the space IPv4 Unicast and instruct the IANA to begin issuing those /8s to the RIRs.
Once that happens, the rest of the allocation process is basically automatic. From a policy perspective at the RIR level, it will be no different than say 4/8 or 1/8. Actually it would be fundamentally different to 4/8 or 1/8. You are looking at firmware upgrades rather than dealing with squatters and out-of-date ACLs both of which are self-inflicted by one of the parties. Routers and end devices that don?t know how to hand 240/4 are no self inflicted injuries. Issuing 4/8 or 1/8 worked for parties that had been following the rules. With 240/4 there where no rules to follow which results in RIR?s leasing known defective addresses. I was speaking from an RIR allocation perspective, NOT talking about the technological hurdles to implementation.
I was specifically responding to someone?s question about how the RIRs would be impacted by this if it were to come to pass.
I addressed your concern in the following paragraph as an aside, however.
Now, convincing vendors to update their firmware, software, etc. is another matter and entirely outside of the control of the RIRs. Merchant compliance with IETF standards is generally considered useful, but it is entirely voluntary and even in the best of circumstances doesn?t every happen instantaneously and almost always involves some stumbles along the way.
Owen
On Mar 15, 2022, at 02:54 , Sylvain Baya<abscoco@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear NANOG-ers, Hope this email finds you in good health! Please see my comments below, inline...
Le mardi 15 mars 2022,<bzs@theworld.com> a ?crit :
Hi Barry, Thanks for your email, brother!
But the RIRs are the ones fielding requests for IPv4 space, and have some notion of how policy implementation might work in practice, so should have a lot of useful input.
...of course, it appears that RIRs have the opportunity to add their useful inputs, as Impact Analysis Report (IAR); during the Policy Development Process (PDP) initiated by the*appropriate* [1] Internet community. They explain it themselves here [2]. __ [1]:<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020> [2]:<https://www.nro.net/accountability/rir-accountability/q-and-a/>
Shalom, --sb.
On March 14, 2022 at 00:45niels=nanog@bakker.net (Niels Bakker) wrote:
*bzs@theworld.com (bzs@theworld.com) [Mon 14 Mar 2022, 00:31 CET]:
Personally I'd rather hear from the RIRs regarding the value or not of making more IPv4 space such as 240/4 available. They're on the front lines of this. You've got your policy development process diagram upside down. The community decides what the RIRs implement. They're not in touch with merchant silicon manufacturers.
-- Niels. -- -Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die |bzs@TheWorld.com |http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility |*oo*
-- Best Regards ! __ baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure> Subscribe to Mailing List:<https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> __ #?LASAINTEBIBLE?|#?Romains15?:33?Que LE ?#?DIEU? de ?#?Paix? soit avec vous tous! ?#?Amen?!? ?#?MaPri?re? est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chr?tiennement? ?Comme une biche soupire apr?s des courants d?eau, ainsi mon ?me soupire apr?s TOI, ? DIEU!?(#Psaumes42:2)
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET:marka@isc.org
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus