[147450] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sad IPv4 story?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel jaeggli)
Sun Dec 11 01:04:56 2011
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 22:03:50 -0800
From: Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EE442AC.1020309@bogus.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 12/10/11 21:42 , Joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 12/10/11 17:48 , Barry Shein wrote:
>>
>>>> I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific
>>>> area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their
>>>> business the way they would like?
>>
>> This sniping elicited by the above seems inappropriate and
>> unprofessional, the request/anecdote seemed reasonable and could
>> elicit solutions such as partnerships, etc.
>
> engineering solutions work with the constraints at hand.
>
> The maximum ipv4 delegation size to be issued in apnic is a /22. one has
> to assume that when it's gone it's gone.
>
> given that constraint, I know how I'd build it.
Setting aside the sad story part for the moment, Would this be a good
subject for a BOF? Are there others who would be willing to participate
(residendential,transit or dc operators, and potentially vendors of
equipment or address transfer brokers).
I'd call it something like:
IPV4 runout - Doing more with less.
* IPV4 runout means new entrants will from the outset deploy techniques
the present operators consider undesirable.
* IPV6 should be appearing as part and parcel of new greenfield projects
I would think.
* On the vendor side CGN hardware is becoming a mature product space.
* Datacenter/ICP operators confront a similar set of problems both
supporting outgoing connections for large pools and incoming termination.
>
