[arin-ppml] Solving the squatting problem

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Thu May 16 23:58:48 EDT 2019

Why do you need an RIR to allocate anything if you just want to use 240/4 as private space? Wouldn’t it be sufficient to patch your kernels on your servers and network gear etc.? That’s not a trivial amount of work, but it would be easier than convincing 5 registries or a standards body to go along. And there is of course the whole “running code” thing: if a bunch of people start running code that lets them use 240/4 as private space, that might be better received than blue sky proposals to do so. 

That said, it’s not that difficult to use IPv6 inside your own network to replace RFC1918 space, so not sure if anyone would find the 240/4 effort worthwhile vs. just turning on IPv6 support in all the relevant places. 


On May 16, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Michel Py <michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:

>> Cathy Aronson wrote :
>> My point is that this has to come from the IETF
> It does not. And failed attempts were 10 years ago, when almost everyone still believed that IPv6 would be deployed "within 2 or 3 years".
> I hate to break it to you, but ARIN members interest are not automatically the same as the IETF, and it was more than 10 years ago.
> Since then, the world has ran out of IPv4 and it's still turning and the Internet is still up.
>> As Owen has said and the IETF has agreed, IPv6 is the “better alternative ”
> It has been for 20 years, and still has not happened. Maybe 25% of the Internet is dual-stacked, and maybe 3% is IPv6-only.
> I rest my case.
> Michel.
> _______________________________________________
> 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