Once upon a time, Christopher Hawker <chris@thesysadmin.au> said:

The idea to this is to allow new networks to emerge onto the internet, without potentially having to fork out substantial amounts of money.

There is a substatial amount of money involved in trying to make 240/4 usable on the Internet. Network equipment vendors, software vendors, and companies and users currently operating on the Internet will have to spend time and money to make that happen. So basically, you are looking for everyone currently involved in the Internet operations to subsidize these theoretical new companies, which may be competitors, may or may not succeed (lots of new companies fail for reasons unrelated to IPv4 address space cost), etc. Are you also looking for new rules to impose additional limits on transfers of 240/4 space? Because since you want this space to go to new companies, a bunch of them will fail (as a lot of companies do not succeed) and be bought out by existing larger companies, just shifting that 240/4 space right back into the same hands. In fact, it would be an obvious incentive to start a venture that can qualify for 240/4 space, only to turn around and sell the business to a pre-existing company that wants more IPv4 space. If you want 240/4 to be reserved for these new companies, you haven't identified ANY reason for ANY existing company or user to exert any resources, other than "but I want it". -- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>

inline Christopher Hawker <chris@thesysadmin.au> writes:

Hi Christian,

The idea to this is to allow new networks to emerge onto the internet, without potentially having to fork out substantial amounts of money.

That would then be using IPv6 with IPv4 transition translation etc at the ingress/egress to your new shiny ISP.

I am of the view that networks large enough to require more than a /8 v4 for a private network, would be in the position to move towards IPv6-only. Meta has already achieved this (https://engineering.fb.com/2017/01/17/production-engineering/legacy-support-...) by rolling out dual-stack on their existing nodes and enabling new nodes as IPv6-only.

Any network of any size can justify using IPv6. You will though face some old telco monopolistic / Tier 1 incumbencies who find their benefit in networking is to be as anti social to fellow networks as their lack of imagination on the value of connectivity can facilitate and regret they can't charge time and distance but very happy to charge on ingress and egress.

I cannot think of a bigger waste of resources that have the possibility of being publicly used, than to allocate an additional 16 x /8 to RFC1918 space.

I expect it would take many years for 240/4 to have universal routing as a public resource. That maybe the first challenge to get it through IETF The other challenge is that the block is currently marked experimental and really if you want to make a plan to use all or part of that block. Then that should be for experimental purposes. Just saying it is now public isn't really an innovation. Also once reallocated its lost to future experimental uses.

The same argument could be had about using larger than a /8 for private networking. Why not use IPv6?

well now you are speaking hexadecimal!

Regards, Christopher Hawker

best Christian

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:51 PM To: Christopher Hawker <chris@thesysadmin.au> Cc: Denis Fondras <xxnog@ledeuns.net>; nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

excuse top posting -

I don't see a case for shifting 240/4 into public IP space if it is just going to sustain the rentier sinecures of the existing IPv4 incumbencies. In other words if RIRs don't use it boost new entrants it will just add another knot to the stranglehold we are in vis IPv4.

I can see a potential case for shifting it from experimental to private space given the fact that "the rest of us" without public IP space and natted behind CGNATs have taken to use IPv4 for wireguard, containers, zero configs and so on, to tie our various locations, services and applications together within our own private distributed nets and expose our services for public consumption over IPv6.

C

Christian de Larrinaga

Christian Christopher Hawker <chris@thesysadmin.au> writes

...

Hi Denis,

It will only be burned through if RIR communities change policies to allow for larger delegations than what is currently in place. I believe that some level of change is possible whilst limiting the exhaustion rate, e.g. allowing for delegations up to a maximum holding of a /22, however we shouldn't go crazy (for want of a better phrase) and allow for delegations of a /20, /19 etc.

If this was only going to give us a potential 1-3 years' worth of space, then I would agree in saying that it is a waste of time, would take far too long to make the space usable and wouldn't be worth it. However, as long as we don't get greedy, change the maximum allowed delegation to large delegations, and every Tom/Dick/Harry applying for a /16 allocation then 240/4 will last us a lengthy amount of time, at least a few decades.

Regards, Christopher Hawker ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris=thesysadmin.au@nanog.org> on behalf of Denis Fondras via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:10 PM To: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

Le Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 03:24:21PM -0800, David Conrad a écrit :

...

This doesn’t seem all that positive to me, particularly because it’s temporary since the underlying problem (limited resource, unlimited demand) cannot be addressed.

I agree with this. Yet I am in favor of changing the status of 240/4, just so it can get burned fast, we stop this endless discussion and can start to deploy IPv6 again.

Denis

-- Christian de Larrinaga