[168485] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Will a single /27 get fully routed these days?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Jan 27 03:12:54 2014
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <BADB8598-3AE6-42EA-9296-B0D2041AC7EF@steffann.nl>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 00:07:41 -0800
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 26, 2014, at 00:39 , Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
> Hi Owen,
>=20
>>> Same question=85 Will people adjust their filters, (even if only for =
that prefix)? All over the world? I think 'will adjust their filters for =
XYZ' is highly optimistic, but let's hope it will work, otherwise the =
ISPs in the ARIN region will have a problem. (Or maybe not: existing =
ISPs (for who a /2[4-8] is not a significant amount) might not mind if a =
new competitors only gets a /2[5-8] that they cannot route globally. But =
I really hope it doesn't come to that.)
>>=20
>> Realistically, anyone depending on IPv4 is going to has a growing =
problem which will only continue to grow.
>=20
> Yes, but those last IPv4 addresses are for ISPs who work with IPv6 and =
need a little bit of IPv4 to communicate with the legacy world. If they =
can't even do that it will be extra hard (impossible?) for them to =
function.
Which is precisely why I authored that particular policy at the time.
>>> But more important: which /10 is set aside for this? It is not =
listed on https://www.arin.net/knowledge/ip_blocks.html
>>=20
>> I'm not sure it has been determined yet, let alone announced.
>=20
> According to =
https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html phase one it =
should have been done in September 2012: 'IPv4 address space required =
for NRPM 4.10, which sets aside a contiguous IPv4 /10 block to =
facilitate IPv6 deployment, was reserved and removed from the remaining =
IPv4 address pool.' I can't find anything more specific though...
OK, then I'm sure it's been determined, but I can't really fault them =
for not announcing it yet.
>>>> Consider the possibility of a policy change which allows the =
transfer of smaller blocks (current ARIN policy limits this to /24 =
minimum, but ARIN policy is not immutable, we have a policy development =
process so that anyone who wants to can start the process of changing =
it.)
>>>=20
>>> I=92m well aware of that, but I=92ll stick to RIPE policies for now =
:-)
>>=20
>> I admit I'm not familiar with the details of the RIPE policy in this =
regard. Do they allow longer prefixes to be transferred and/or acquired?
>=20
> Allow: yes. Anybody doing that for globally routable purposes: no. =
Although it can be used for networks that don't need to be in the global =
BGP table.
>=20
>> I will point out that the NA in NANOG mostly refers to the ARIN =
region.
>=20
> ??? No idea what this comment is supposed to mean. You may find this =
weird, but since the Internet is actually a global network I do care =
about what happens in NA...
You made the comment that you would "...stick to RIPE...". I pointed out =
that ARIN was the RIR of record for most of the territory for which this =
list is focused.
Owen
