On Jul 15, 2015, at 16:45 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com> wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody other then the ipv6 adherents.
Globally we were burning through about a /8 every month or two in "the good old days." So in the best case scenario we'd get 32 more months of easy to get IPv4, but at an overwhelming cost to re-implement every network stack.
This option was considered back in the early 2000's when I was still involved in the discussion, and rejected as impractical.
Removing experimental status does not equate with the burden of making it equivalent use to the rest of the address space.
How about the ARIN burn rate post IANA runout? How long does 16 /8 last then?
Assuming you could somehow make 16 /8s available, do you really think that anyone would accept the idea of allocating all of them to a single RIR, let alone the one in North America? I tend to doubt it. So ARIN’s burn rate post-runout really isn’t all that relevant.
What would be wrong with removing experimental status and allowing one of the /8 to be used for low barrier to /16 assignment to any party demonstrating a willingness to coax usability of the space?
The wasted effort of people whose time is better spent deploying IPv6.
Yes, any such effort has to run the gauntlet of IETF/IANA/RIR policy.
Which I would rather have those folks focused on something useful than wasting their time on this.
CGN /10 managed. This could too, if all the naysayers would just step out of the way.
The /10 did not require modifying every system on the internet or even any systems on the internet. It just required setting aside a block. Even then, it was actually more effort than it should have required, but it was pretty minimal. OTOH, it provided an actual usable solution to a real world problem. What you are proposing just wastes a lot of people’s time with nothing to show for it. Owen