[arin-ppml] Solving the squatting problem

[Cj Aronson]

The IETF has rejected this change to class e space a number of times.  The
last draft on this expired in 2008.   The overwhelming sentiment on the
subject is that we should focus on deploying IPv6.  If you feel strongly
about it then write a new Internet draft and try to get it to move
forward.  I suspect that won't happen.

-----Cathy

{Ô,Ô}
  (( ))
  ◊  ◊


On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 2:04 PM Michel Py <
michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:

> > Owen DeLong wrote :
> > Let’s see what that entails…
> > Any of those organizations have Linux boxes? — I bet the answer is yes…
> OK… Have to update the Linux Kernel…
>
> Already done.
>
> > BSD? — Yep — OK, that too…
>
> Not on top of that one, but I don't see a problem either.
>
> > Cisco?…
>
> Would not be an issue, since Cisco employees wrote one of the drafts.
>
> > Juniper?…
>
> Easy money : do it, or we switch to Cisco
>
> > Windows?…
> > MacOS?…
> > Arista?…
> > iPhones?
> > Androids?
> > Windows Phones?
>
> Don't care, don't use, don't need. Not on my internal network
> infrastructure.
> And you forgot FRR and BIRD, don't see an issue there either.
>
> > I’m arguing that 204/4 wouldn’t have eliminated the squatting problem.
>
> Come on, how could you say that ? if 240/4 was available, people would use
> it instead of squatting DoD space. They know it's wrong.
>
> > It does not work, and as time passes, it will work even less.
> > How do you figure this? It’s working more and more every day… Every
> statistical
> > measure shows IPv6 to be a growing fraction of internet traffic.
>
> Obviously has not stopped people from squatting, and squatting is a much
> more recent phenomenon than IPv6.
>
>
> >> You're telling them to drink fruit juice, but they want booze.
> >> No matter what you say, they'll keep making moonshine.
> > Well, it’s more like I’m saying “Look, we’re out of petroleum and
> > continuing to use it is destroying the planet. Perhaps solar, wind,
> > hydro, or other renewables would meet your energy needs?” And you’re
> > saying that we should just keep supporting their petroleum habit.
>
> You're missing the point here. Every bit of renewable energy we use
> reduces the use of fossil fuels.
> You know why : because energy is energy. There is no IPv6 energy
> incompatible with IPv4 energy.
> Using IPv6 barely reduces IPv4 usage : almost everyone has to dual-stack.
>
> >> This is not what you and I wanted, 20 years ago. Owen, the
> >> prohibition looked like a good idea, but it did not work.
> > Phrasing it like prohibition is where you depart from reality. Nobody
> was trying to prohibit
> > people from using IPv4 as long as there were IPv4 addresses available.
> Now that we’re out,
>
> They are not out. There is a /4 sitting unused, and efforts to torpedo it
> have led to squatting.
> Squatting is a direct by-product of RFC1918 space being too small. We have
> the solution, yet you support the prohibition.
> In order to promote your views of IPv6 deployment, you prohibit people
> from using 240/4.
> Result : they squat DoD space.
>
> This IS prohibition : they want the barrel of 240/4 booze, you say they
> can't have it. At night, when the moon shines, they make their own. Down
> the hatch, a bottle of 30/8 gets the job done, and they still are not
> drinking your fruit juice.
> People are not drinking less, and now the mafia owns the market. And you
> don't see it much as a problem.
>
>
> Michel.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190516/d861f3e1/attachment.htm>