[arin-ppml] DoD to sell 13 x /8 of its IPv4 Blocks over the next 10 years and need for ARIN-2019-19

hostmaster at uneedus.com hostmaster at uneedus.com
Thu Dec 19 09:22:26 EST 2019

I did a bit of looking.  The language did appear in House Bill 2500, but 
that bill has ONLY passed the House.  Those that track bills give it only 
a 3 percent chance of passage.  That language never made it to passage.

Therefore, it looks like it is going nowhere.  The only US federal 
government block I can see that might go on sale easily is 56/8 run by the 
US Post Office.  As an independent agency of the Federal Government they 
might be able to sell all or part of it without congress approving it. 
Also, everyone knows they have a debt, and congress would likely not 
object to a sale of all or part of it to pay some of that debt off.  They 
do not appear to be using any of it beyond the first few /24's on the open 
internet.  The rest might be used on their mail machines internally, but 
since those run Linux, they could easily use V6 instead.  In fact, they 
should be already running v6 due to the 2008 EOP mandate.

However, I do know of internal networks already running in the upper half 
of 56/8.  As for people "making" those people on these addresses move, we 
know that noone but the operators of those networks can require movement. 
We also know that many larger networks use a lot of cloud services, and 
these services would also be a likely consumer of these newly available 
addresses.  When the two intersect, and they cannot get to their cloud 
service, because the cloud address is being used internally, that is when 
a renumber might be forced.  Since these services often have a lot of A 
records, such an issue will be quite hard to track down, as it will not 
always fail.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list