[ppml] Reclamation - Rededication of Address Space - was Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing

[Bill Darte]

I suggest that this discussion is off-topic to the IPv4 Soft Landing
policy proposal discussion.

Bill Darte
ARIN AC and proposal shepherd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Dan.Thorson at seagate.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 11:22 AM
> To: Public Policy Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing
> 
> 
> 
> > 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).
> 
> Those of us in the corporate world use significant portions 
> of the 172.16 /12, as well as 10/8 and 192.168/16.  RFC1918 
> needs to be sacred ground.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> There is danger in the assumption that there is a 
> "(miniscule) multicast world".  Whereas this is likely true 
> on the Big-I Internet, multicast is widely used in the 
> corporate manufacturing world.  Who is prepared to pay the 
> price of lost connectivity when traditional multicast IP's 
> are suddenly deployed as end-user IP's?  Who will be 
> modifying all my legacy system's IP stacks?
> 
> I'm afraid I don't have much to offer in the way of 
> solutions... I simply call for caution when making 
> assumptions of what is actually "used" re: RFC1918 and multicast IP's.
> 
> danT
> 
> ===================================================
> Dan Thorson - Seagate Technology - CCIE 10754
> desk +1 (952) 402-8293        fax +1 (952) 402-1007
> SeaTel  8-402-8293 ===================================================
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>