[ppml] "...an aggressive process of IPv4 modification or replacement ought to be underway."

[Jim Fleming]

From: "Bill Darte" <billd at cait.wustl.edu>
"Oh, BTW, if IPv6 is not a viable protocol for widespread Internet
application, then an aggressive process of IPv4 modification or replacement
ought to be underway."
======

How "aggressive" ?

IPv4++ ?
IPv5 ?
IPv7 ?
IPv8 ?
IPv16 ?

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer...
http://www.ietf.com
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://ipv8.dyndns.tv
http://ipv8.dyns.cx
http://ipv8.no-ip.com
http://ipv8.no-ip.biz
http://ipv8.no-ip.info
http://ipv8.myip.us
http://ipv8.dyn.ee
http://ipv8.community.net.au


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Darte" <billd at cait.wustl.edu>
To: "ARIN PPML" <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:21 AM
Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9


> Seems to me that ultimately the issue of IPv4 address reclamation falls out
> like this....
> 
> Question 1..... Is IPv6 really a viable protocol for widespread Internet
> application?  If yes, then...
> 
> Question 2..... Is the (relatively) contiguous blocks of unallocated IPv4
> space sufficient to last until there is widespread adoption of IPv6?  If
> yes, then.... Do not worry about reclamation at all.
> 
> If the answer to Question 1 or Question 2 is NO, then.... begin an
> aggressive process of voluntary reclamation, immediately (soon).  Making a
> case for why it is in the best interests of the 'public' for such return
> provides the basis for litigation (involuntary reclamation) in the future if
> need be.
> 
> Oh, BTW, if IPv6 is not a viable protocol for widespread Internet
> application, then an aggressive process of IPv4 modification or replacement
> ought to be underway.
> 
> Bill Darte
> ARIN AC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Speaking only for myself...
> > 
> > I agree with David Conrad on this.  People have 
> > voluntarily returned large blocks in the past, 
> > notably including Stanford University and my 
> > former employer, BBN/GTE.
> > 
> > ARIN's ability to recover legacy address space 
> > from unwilling holders is unclear, and the attempt 
> > might well be both painful and expensive.
> > 
> > ARIN's ability to recover space _voluntarily_, 
> > however, is largely untested.  It may be that 
> > folks have not returned IPv4 space because they 
> > have not persuasively been asked.
> > 
> > In any case, it seems to me that the cost of 
> > making a preliminary experiment is not great.  
> > Nearly a quarter of all IPv4 space, and nearly a 
> > half of all allocated IPv4 space, is tied up in 
> > blocks 003/8 to 057/8.  These seem to me to 
> > represent low hanging fruit - if memory serves, 
> > the CAIDA data presented a few meetings ago 
> > showed that a significant fraction of that space 
> > is "dark", which seems to suggest (but not prove) 
> > that much of it might be underutilized.  And only 
> > about fifty organizations hold that low hanging 
> > fruit.
> > 
> > My understanding is that, at the time of the ALE 
> > work, it was felt that reclamation was not 
> > warranted.  The exponential growth of address 
> > consumption would quickly overcome any possible 
> > reclamation.
> > 
> > That does not seem to me to be the case today.  
> > The last data I know of showed the annual growth 
> > of IPv4 address consumption to be in the range 
> > between 3% and 7% per year, and declining over 
> > time.  Relative to that rate of growth, address 
> > reclamation could perhaps extend the life of the 
> > IPv4 space by some years.  I think that that would 
> > be a good thing, although some might legitimately 
> > argue otherwise...
> > 
> > In any case, it seems to me that a targeted and 
> > prioritized pilot program for voluntary 
> > reclamation of IPv4 addresses would be worth 
> > attempting, would not need to be very expensive, 
> > and if done with sensitivity need not generate ill 
> > will between ARIN and the holders of these address 
> > blocks.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > =====
> > 
> > Does this make sense?
> > 
> > Do people see either positive or negative 
> > incentives that ARIN could use to encourage the 
> > return of large, low utilization IPv4 address 
> > blocks?
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > - Scott
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---- Original message ----
> > >Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:27:41 -0500 
> > >From: Bill Darte <billd at cait.wustl.edu>  
> > >Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space 
> > WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9  
> > >To: "'David Conrad'" <david.conrad at nominum.com>, 
> > Trevor Paquette <Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca>, 
> > "'Mury'" <mury at goldengate.net>, sigma at smx.pair.com
> > >Cc: ARIN PPML <ppml at arin.net>
> > >
> > >FYI on this issue, there is RFC 1917 which 
> > specifically requests the return
> > >of unused networks...
> > >
> > >RFC 1917
> > >An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return
> > >Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA
> > >
> > >Network Working Group
> > >Request for Comments: 1917
> > >BCP: 4
> > >Category: Best Current Practice
> > >
> > >P. Nesser II
> > >Nesser & Nesser Consulting
> > >February 1996
> > >
> > >Bill Darte
> > >ARIN Advisory Council
> > >
> > >314 935-7575
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: David Conrad 
> > [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com]
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:46 PM
> > >> To: Trevor Paquette; 'Mury'; sigma at smx.pair.com
> > >> Cc: ARIN PPML
> > >> Subject: Re: Encouraging return of legacy space 
> > WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN
> > >> Policy Proposal 2002-9
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> I think you'd be surprised.  Two data points: 
> > Stanford 
> > >> University returned a
> > >> /8.  BBN returned a couple of /8s I believe.
> > >> 
> > >> The last time an effort was undertaken to 
> > encourage people to 
> > >> return address
> > >> space, it was fairly successful.
> > >> 
> > >> Rgds,
> > >> -drc
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>    <... snip ... >
> >