[arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)

[Owen DeLong]

> On Sep 12, 2021, at 13:27 , Michel Py <michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> 
>> Owen DeLong wrote :
>> However, some smart engineer(s) somewhere working in a garage (Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak) may very
>> well develop an IPv4 compatible protocol that can be used along with IPv4 making the transition away
>> from IPv4 easier and less costly - and if that happens maybe we end up with IPv8.  
> 
> <sarcasm>
> Paging Jim Flemming !
> </sarcasm>

You have attributed a quote that I was responding to as if I wrote it… I did not.

> 
> How can you say this ? It can't happen while the ivory tower stands.
> 
> 
>> Joe Maimon wrote :
>> Call a spade a spade. You are a fan of IPv4 leasing for the same motivating factor as always.
>> You believe it will hasten the IPv6 migration by intensifying the misery of IPv4 users.
> 
> Indeed. And there are multiple examples of this kind of thing happening all over the place for the last 20 years.
> Anything that makes IPv4 bad is good for IPv6.

No, I actually view my acceptance of IPv4 leasing as an acceptance of reality that IPv6 (tragic as this is) will not
become the lingua franca of the internet for some years to come and leasing IPv4 allows organizations to acquire
IPv4 resources in a less capital-intensive way than purchasing.

IMHO, we don’t need to “make” IPv4 bad, address scarcity and the hacks to work around it are already doing a
perfectly wonderful job of that without my help.

>> I believe that is neither inevitable nor justifiable.
>> I believe you have not factored the collateral damage properly.
> 
> +1
> Ironically, DoD (probably the org that wastes the most IP addresses), is a victim in that irresponsible behavior. As the multiple efforts to make 240/4 an extension of RFC1918 have been torpedoed again and again, their un-announced address space has become the de-facto space to hijack when one needs more than 10/8. The zealots efforts trying to accelerate IPv6 by denying class E to become usable has not stopped companies from using IPv4. Instead of using 240/4, they have hijacked DoD. Irony, because DoD has historically been a strong supporter of IPv6 adoption.

The refusal to deploy 240/4 are mostly on the basis that it would take just as much code effort to do that as it would to put v6 on a box, with the exception that most boxes already have a v6 stack, so actually more effort, yet yielding substantially less gain.

So people who understand math looked at it and said “more pain, less gain, why would we do that?”

I know you don’t like that answer because for some reason, you prefer the ongoing pain of IPv4 vs. the small short-term pain of deploying IPv6, but there it is.

>> Ronald F. Guilmette wrote :
>> We're dying of thirst in the middle of Lake Superior.
> 
> Indeed we are, and I'll give two examples :
> 
> 1. My home setup uses six (6) public IP addresses. I have a /30, that's 4. Then, when I plug a wifi bridge on one of the available ports in the back of my ISP "router" (for guest wifi, or for things that are known to be full of security holes such as all this new IoT buzz), it uses a fifth one. Then, I have a VOIP phone (from the same ISP) that uses a sixth address and a separate "router", despite the fact that the other router also has two FXS ports for phones same as the second router. Solutions have been available for ages to avoid that kind of thing. IP unnumbered comes to mind, or giving an address in a /24 VLAN instead of a /30.

I use more. Are you going to claim that my choice not to NAT is somehow invalid?

> 2. I have remote sites in almost all US states. The majority of these have a static IP. Without asking for anything, I systematically get a /29 or a /28, because it's a "business".
> 
> There is no shortage. There is an organized waste that was used earlier (during the free pool days) to justify obtaining more of them and hoard them.
> That being said, I'm not sure what could have been done about that.

At some point, we have to consider that the internet should serve everyone.

Let’s assume that we divide the nearly 8 billion people on the planet into average households of 2.3 persons per household, that gives us roughly
3.478 billion households, let’s call it 3.5 to make the math easy to follow.

There are 3.2 billion unicast addresses in IPv4. If we added the 16 /8s from 240/4, we could call that 3.7 billion unicast addresses.

You’ve admitted that there are valid reasons for at least 6 addresses per household.

Please explain to me how you provide 6 addresses to 3.5 billion households using 3.7 billion addresses. Then tell me what addresses you will
use for servers, infrastructure, DNS services, provisioning systems, etc.?

Whether we are up against it today or not, we do have an address shortage in IPv4.

>> Steven Ryerse wrote :
>> The other thing that could cause a shift to another IP energy sooner would be interference by say, the
>> US Government, requiring in law a shift away from IPv4 - similar to what they did with HD TV signals.
> 
> It's already in place. There are various government mandates to enable IPv6. Was not more successful than GOSIP or ISDN. People have short memories : there was a government mandate do deploy ISDN, and it was such a failure that some telcos chose not to deploy. As there was no carrot, the government then tried the stick method and set up fines for operators if they did not deploy it, and some operators preferred to pay the fines. ISDN was never widely available, and it has died before POTS.
> IPv6 is just the same as ISDN : I Still Don't Need.

Actually, the government mandates to date have all been about what is done on government systems and they have been relatively successful, though not on the intended timeframes.

ISDN was quite widely deployed and, in fact, is still in widespread use, just not for data for the most part.

>> I prefer to let the market decide when.
> 
> So does the market ;-)
> 
>> I'm not exactly sure what the price has to rise to before mankind switches to other forms of energy. I paid $75 to fill up my pickup truck today.
> 
> I remember filling up for $0.99 a gallon. In California. It now is $4 a gallon (in my rabbit hole, not in the bay). In France, it's $7 a gallon. We have not stopped driving.

No, but I seem to see a growing number of Tesla and other EVs on the highways these days.

Owen