[arin-ppml] DoD to sell 13 x /8 of its IPv4 Blocks over the next 10 years and need for ARIN-2019-19
David Farmer
farmer at umn.edu
Thu Dec 19 14:53:56 EST 2019
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:44 AM Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
wrote:
> As far as I understand as presented in the URL the text is the one after
> passing on both houses and just lacks President's sanction. As it was
> probably a proposal drafted by the Department of Defense there is no way to
> think that President will refuse it. But I may be missing something on my
> reading.
>
You missed the conference report; from page 1359 of the conference report.
Disposal of IPv4 addresses
The House amendment contained a provision (sec. 1088)
that would require the Department of Defense to sell several
blocks of internet protocol version 4 addresses over a period
of ten years.
The Senate bill contained no similar provision.
The House recedes.
> Also I think Congress has no much choice to keep all this in the case for
> some 'strategic reason' until it worths nothing.
> I even thought they would wish to keep at least 1 x /8 for them but it
> doesn't seem to be the case.
>
> As I said in the first message one very important point othet than the
> selling itself is their direction to move to IPv6 despite some beleivers
> that IPv6 is dead. Would even them making a wrong decision in this regards
> ? I don't think so.
>
> Fernando
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, 11:06 Bill Woodcock, <woody at pch.net> wrote:
>
>> Apparently it was in the House Bill, but was removed in the Senate
>> version, and didn’t make it through conference.
>>
>> -Bill
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 19, 2019, at 14:49, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>> >
>> > I thought the budget bill already passed. Did it contain the IPv4
>> sell provisions or not? Anyone know what the bill number was, and if it
>> was signed by the President?
>> >
>> > Albert Erdmann
>> > Network Administrator
>> > Paradise On Line Inc.
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Ca By wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 4:03 AM <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:
>> >> I see this as an instant headache for a lot of larger network
>> operators
>> >> who are using portions of this DOD space like RFC1918 addresses.
>> Once
>> >> these addresses become public, those operators are going to have
>> to
>> >> renumber that space. That is 16.9 million hosts per block used.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe these operators will take the lead of the DOD and move
>> those hosts
>> >> to IPv6 instead, where there is plenty of space. Since the space
>> is
>> >> already not directly addressable, it would simply be a matter of
>> changing
>> >> the existing NAT to use v6 as its input, or adding a v6 address
>> to their
>> >> proxy servers.
>> >> Or maybe nobody moves
>> >> And the USG has no leverage to make them move
>> >> And the value of said addresses is impaired.
>> >> Also, the language requiring the DoD to move has been removed from the
>> bill. Likely because relevant budget organs of government explained how it
>> is
>> >> fiscally impossible to get to ipv6 for them. You can search this
>> archive for one M. Py for a template of what they may say about running old
>> systems.
>> >> I am sure the DoD contractor lobbyist and maybe even address broker
>> lobbyist get those provisions added back, as there is tax payer money to be
>> made
>> >>
>> >> With all this space likely coming to the market soon, now is the
>> time to
>> >> adopt the proposal to require v6 use before allowing anyone to
>> receive
>> >> this v4 space. While this will help the v4 supply, DOD may find
>> the price
>> >> collapsed at the end of the 10 year period if IPv6 uptake
>> increases due to
>> >> DOD and other use of IPv6 instead of IPv4.
>> >>
>> >> As far as those who suggest the IPv4 space problem is solved,
>> based on use
>> >> rates before runout, this may buy us 2 or 3 years. However the
>> DOD has 10
>> >> years to sell, and by then, the IPv4 market may already be
>> collapsed to
>> >> near zero levels depending upon the uptake of IPv6, which will be
>> lead by
>> >> DOD purchases of IPv6 only equipment to follow the mandate.
>> >>
>> >> Albert Erdmann
>> >> Network Administrator
>> >> Paradise On Line Inc.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Fernando Frediani wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I believe these are relevant news to this list
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1790/text#toc-H3733C370A69A4095B62B213B52530170
>> >> >
>> >> > "IPv6 strategy made it into NDAA 2020, requiring DOD to sell 13
>> x /8s
>> >> > (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 10 years after the date of the
>> enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall sell all of the IPv4
>> >> addresses described in
>> >> > subsection (b) at fair market value."
>> >> >
>> >> > Finally is happening.
>> >> > I imagined that one day they would return something, but
>> decided to sell. However, looking at the good side, this makes all this
>> wasted space
>> >> to become utilized.
>> >> >
>> >> > A few questions that arise are: how will this selling process
>> happen, if directly, through brokers, if there will be any mechanism to
>> >> distribute this selling among
>> >> > each one of all 5 RIRs or if it will be opened in the model
>> "first come, first served"
>> >> >
>> >> > And before something says, I don't believe this will make any
>> big difference to IPv6 implementation to advance or delay it significantly.
>> >> > Even talking about more than 200 million IPv4 addresses, I
>> don't think this will change much this scenario if they are put directly at
>> end
>> >> users disposition.
>> >> >
>> >> > Finally, an important detail to highlight in the report is:
>> "(D) The plan of the Secretary to transition all Department addresses to
>> IPv6."
>> >> >
>> >> > Let's see who will be the big buyers and how will this affect
>> the IPv4 value for the next years.
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards
>> >> > Fernando Frediani
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >_______________________________________________
>> >> ARIN-PPML
>> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ARIN-PPML
>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20191219/873982dc/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list