[182390] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Jul 15 20:30:00 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <55A6F0B3.8010302@ttec.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:25:33 -0700
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 16:45 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>>> I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for =
everybody
>>> other then the ipv6 adherents.
>>=20
>> Globally we were burning through about a /8 every month or two in =
"the
>> good old days." So in the best case scenario we'd get 32 more months =
of
>> easy to get IPv4, but at an overwhelming cost to re-implement every
>> network stack.
>>=20
>> This option was considered back in the early 2000's when I was still
>> involved in the discussion, and rejected as impractical.
>>=20
>=20
>=20
> Removing experimental status does not equate with the burden of making =
it equivalent use to the rest of the address space.
>=20
> How about the ARIN burn rate post IANA runout? How long does 16 /8 =
last then?
Assuming you could somehow make 16 /8s available, do you really think =
that anyone would accept the idea of allocating
all of them to a single RIR, let alone the one in North America?
I tend to doubt it.
So ARIN=E2=80=99s burn rate post-runout really isn=E2=80=99t all that =
relevant.
> What would be wrong with removing experimental status and allowing one =
of the /8 to be used for low barrier to /16 assignment to any party =
demonstrating a willingness to coax usability of the space?
The wasted effort of people whose time is better spent deploying IPv6.
> Yes, any such effort has to run the gauntlet of IETF/IANA/RIR policy.
Which I would rather have those folks focused on something useful than =
wasting their time on this.
> CGN /10 managed. This could too, if all the naysayers would just step =
out of the way.
The /10 did not require modifying every system on the internet or even =
any systems on the internet. It just required setting aside a block.
Even then, it was actually more effort than it should have required, but =
it was pretty minimal. OTOH, it provided an actual usable solution to a =
real world problem.
What you are proposing just wastes a lot of people=E2=80=99s time with =
nothing to show for it.
Owen
