[182433] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lee Howard)
Thu Jul 16 23:52:33 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 23:50:23 -0400
From: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org>
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>, <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <55A814EF.5080009@ttec.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 7/16/15, 4:32 PM, "Joe Maimon" <jmaimon@ttec.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lee Howard wrote:
>>
>> So, you would like to update RFC 1112, which defines and reserves Class
>>E?
>> That=A9=F6s easy enough. If somebody had a use in mind for the space, anybod=
y
>> can write such a draft assigning space, which is, I believe, how to
>> direct IANA to do something with it.
>>
>
>nope
=A1=B0Nope?=A1=B1
You mean you don=A1=AFt want to update RFC1112?
Or it=A1=AFs not possible for somebody to write a draft telling IANA to assign
space
for an experiment? Somebody has to write a draft in order for the IETF to
consider it, and there has to be IETF consensus for it to get published as
an
RFC.=20
>
>http://packetlife.net/blog/2010/oct/14/ipv4-exhaustion-what-about-class-e-
>addresses/
>
>All the same rationals, including how it might be bad for ipv6, its too
>late, its too hard, its too little were trotted out then, just as now.
I don=A1=AFt see the relevance. Nobody there proposed reclassifying the space.
Nobody had a proposal for an experiment. Nobody wanted an assignment from
it.
>
>The only use I have in mind for the space is for it to cease being
>classified as experimental and therefore treated as invalid.
You want the word =A1=B0RESERVED=A1=B1 for some entries on this page changed:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml
What do you want it changed to?
>
>> If you want to direct IANA to distribute Class E space among the RIRs,
>> there=A9=F6s more process, because you would also have to develop a global
>> policy (no problem, we get the NRO NC to write it and get consensus at
>> all the RIRs), and then each RIR would need to develop a policy under
>> which to allocate it. I=A9=F6d be surprised if all that could happen in
>> less than three years.
>
>I would not care about that, so long as the impediment, the experimental
>status was removed. Let the stakeholders have a real shot.
There=A1=AFs more to it than that.
How would people who want to use it get assignments?
Right now, there=A1=AFs no policy for assigning that space.
You=A1=AFve told other people that there shouldn=A1=AFt be a top-down restriction o=
n
this space; but there=A1=AFs no top: it=A1=AFs all consensus. The consensus here is
very clear. You are welcome to try to change it, and a couple of us are
trying to should you the processes (IETF, IANA, RIR) to do that.
If all you want to do is vent, we=A1=AFll just move on to another thread.
Lee
