[162556] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Apr 25 09:12:03 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <01e301ce4127$7fcf11d0$7f6d3570$@tndh.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:09:08 -0400
To: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> The really troubling thing that I don't get is why RR got a pile of =
little
> blocks rather than a /12 up front. I don't know if that is an impact =
of
> broken policy, internal deployment decisions about 'right size' =
allocations
> rather than intentional deaggregation, or trying to 'fly under the =
radar'.
> If it is a policy problem it might be worth trying to understand and =
maybe
> fix any long term impact on market transfers.=20
IMHO, the transfer market is utterly and completely unlikely to =
aggregate pre-existing blocks.
If you can come up with an idea of how policy could better enable doing =
so, I would be very interested. However, I suspect there's nothing that =
can be done to policy at this point which will positively impact this =
problem.
In terms of a proposal to help the free pool, I suspect the time it =
would take to get such a policy through the process would exceed the =
duration of the free pool. (Especially if your (Mr. Hain) projections =
are at all accurate).
Bottom line:
Since we started deploying NAT, IPv4 has become progressively more =
painful.
That pain is going to continue to increase. The rate of increase is =
going to accelerate.
IPv6 is relatively painless.
IPv6 provides a host of new opportunities.
It's time to do IPv6.
Owen
