[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing

[Marshall Eubanks]

On May 17, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Thus spake "David Conrad" <drc at virtualized.org>
>> On May 15, 2007, at 1:19 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> IANA could release some historically reserved space such as
>>> 0/8 and 1/8 to the RIRs,
>>
>> I am skeptical we'd be able to "unreserve" 0/8, 127/8, and the
>> RFC 1918 space.  All other reserved addresses (including 1/8 and 14/8
>> which the IANA Number Liaison, Leo Vegoda, has
>> been doing a fantastic  job tracking registrants down) should
>> consider their days of wine, song, and kicking back to watch
>> the world go by near its end.
>
> 1/8 is not usable for human reasons.  10/8 and 192.168/16 are not
> recoverable because that'd give people nothing left to NAT with,  
> and NAT is
> about to become even more prevalent than it already is as people  
> desperately
> try to avoid migrating to v6.  172.16/12 could probably be reduced to
> 172.16/16 without much grief, but pulling 172.16/16 would be tough  
> (though
> not as bad as 192.168/16).
>
>>> and there's a side discussion about opening up 240/4,
>>> however IANA expects the IETF to publish an RFC on such
>>> things first,
>>
>> Yep.  Some folks are working on a draft to do just this.
>
> 255/8 is tough to unreserve in practice for the same reasons as 0/8  
> and
> 127/8, so it's probably not 240/4 but rather 240-254/8.  If we're  
> going to
> do that, we might as well switch 225-238/8 to unicast too -- only  
> 224/8 and
> 239/8 see much use in the (miniscule) multicast world, and the  
> exceedingly
> few oddballs using 225-238/8 could migrate to the remaining two /8s  
> with
> minimal hassle.
>

I assume that this is satire and / or sarcasm. If not, you will get  
push back here.

Regards
Marshall

> So, we could theoretically open up 29 new /8s just by writing an  
> RFC.  In
> reality, that's what, a couple more years of v4 space in exchange for
> billions of dollars in upgrades and time?  That's on par with the  
> cost of
> just doing v6 now -- and we'll still have to pay that v6 cost later  
> anyways.
>
> (Also, the idea of opening those /8s up only for private use is  
> IMHO daft
> and merits RFC publication on 1 Apr.  Anyone who is looking to  
> deploy a new
> private network that'll be incompatible with the rest of the world  
> would use
> v6 and ULAs -- and that solution already exists today without any  
> need for
> new RFCs or product upgrades.)
>
> S
>
> Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
> CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
> K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml