<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:44 AM Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">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.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You missed the conference report; from page 1359 of the conference report. </div><div><br></div><div>Disposal of IPv4 addresses<br> The House amendment contained a provision (sec. 1088) <br>that would require the Department of Defense to sell several <br>blocks of internet protocol version 4 addresses over a period <br>of ten years.<br> The Senate bill contained no similar provision.<br> The House recedes.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"></div><div dir="auto">Also I think Congress has no much choice to keep all this in the case for some 'strategic reason' until it worths nothing.</div><div dir="auto">I even thought they would wish to keep at least 1 x /8 for them but it doesn't seem to be the case.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Fernando</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, 11:06 Bill Woodcock, <<a href="mailto:woody@pch.net" target="_blank">woody@pch.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Apparently it was in the House Bill, but was removed in the Senate version, and didn’t make it through conference. <br>
<br>
-Bill<br>
<br>
<br>
> On Dec 19, 2019, at 14:49, <a href="mailto:hostmaster@uneedus.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">hostmaster@uneedus.com</a> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> 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?<br>
> <br>
> Albert Erdmann<br>
> Network Administrator<br>
> Paradise On Line Inc.<br>
> <br>
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Ca By wrote:<br>
>> <br>
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 4:03 AM <<a href="mailto:hostmaster@uneedus.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">hostmaster@uneedus.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> I see this as an instant headache for a lot of larger network operators<br>
>> who are using portions of this DOD space like RFC1918 addresses. Once<br>
>> these addresses become public, those operators are going to have to<br>
>> renumber that space. That is 16.9 million hosts per block used.<br>
>> <br>
>> Maybe these operators will take the lead of the DOD and move those hosts<br>
>> to IPv6 instead, where there is plenty of space. Since the space is<br>
>> already not directly addressable, it would simply be a matter of changing<br>
>> the existing NAT to use v6 as its input, or adding a v6 address to their<br>
>> proxy servers.<br>
>> Or maybe nobody moves<br>
>> And the USG has no leverage to make them move<br>
>> And the value of said addresses is impaired. <br>
>> 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<br>
>> 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. <br>
>> 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 <br>
>> <br>
>> With all this space likely coming to the market soon, now is the time to<br>
>> adopt the proposal to require v6 use before allowing anyone to receive<br>
>> this v4 space. While this will help the v4 supply, DOD may find the price<br>
>> collapsed at the end of the 10 year period if IPv6 uptake increases due to<br>
>> DOD and other use of IPv6 instead of IPv4.<br>
>> <br>
>> As far as those who suggest the IPv4 space problem is solved, based on use<br>
>> rates before runout, this may buy us 2 or 3 years. However the DOD has 10<br>
>> years to sell, and by then, the IPv4 market may already be collapsed to<br>
>> near zero levels depending upon the uptake of IPv6, which will be lead by<br>
>> DOD purchases of IPv6 only equipment to follow the mandate.<br>
>> <br>
>> Albert Erdmann<br>
>> Network Administrator<br>
>> Paradise On Line Inc.<br>
>> <br>
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Fernando Frediani wrote:<br>
>> <br>
>> ><br>
>> > I believe these are relevant news to this list<br>
>> ><br>
>> > <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1790/text#toc-H3733C370A69A4095B62B213B52530170" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1790/text#toc-H3733C370A69A4095B62B213B52530170</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> > "IPv6 strategy made it into NDAA 2020, requiring DOD to sell 13 x /8s<br>
>> > (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<br>
>> addresses described in<br>
>> > subsection (b) at fair market value."<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Finally is happening.<br>
>> > 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<br>
>> to become utilized.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > A few questions that arise are: how will this selling process happen, if directly, through brokers, if there will be any mechanism to<br>
>> distribute this selling among<br>
>> > each one of all 5 RIRs or if it will be opened in the model "first come, first served"<br>
>> ><br>
>> > And before something says, I don't believe this will make any big difference to IPv6 implementation to advance or delay it significantly.<br>
>> > 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<br>
>> users disposition.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Finally, an important detail to highlight in the report is: "(D) The plan of the Secretary to transition all Department addresses to IPv6."<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Let's see who will be the big buyers and how will this affect the IPv4 value for the next years.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Regards<br>
>> > Fernando Frediani<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> >_______________________________________________<br>
>> ARIN-PPML<br>
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
>> <a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
>> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> ARIN-PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> <a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">===============================================<br>David Farmer <a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br>Networking & Telecommunication Services<br>Office of Information Technology<br>University of Minnesota <br>2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<br>Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<br>=============================================== </div></div>