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