<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, 13:12 , <<a href="mailto:hostmaster@uneedus.com">hostmaster@uneedus.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As I understand it, all purchases since 2008 and all federal networks must <br>
be IPv6 capable. They should already be close to dual stack, and a sale <br>
would just involve getting rid of IPv4.<br>
<br>
Unlike typical corporate networks, they should already be 99% there, since <br>
all purchases in the last 11 years were required to be IPv6 capable.<br>
<br>
The conference report already posted shows the ipv4 sale was removed in <br>
the conference committee. Of course if they were going to sell, dropping <br>
all available 8's at once is a quick way to crash the v4 marketplace.<br>
<br>
Maybe instead of selling them, they should consider leasing them instead <br>
for ongoing revenue. Even if it is only to federal contractors.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">This would worse the problem exponentially.</div><div dir="auto">And I would love to be on the side fighting againt any of these pratices which would not only be bad for themselves but for most organizations.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In any way they cannot hold it much longer at the risk it rottens.</div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Albert Erdmann<br>
Network Administrator<br>
Paradise On Line Inc.<br>
<br>
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Fernando Frediani wrote:<br>
<br>
> 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<br>
> 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.<br>
> Also I think Congress has no much choice to keep all this in the case for some 'strategic reason' until it worths nothing.<br>
> I even thought they would wish to keep at least 1 x /8 for them but it doesn't seem to be the case.<br>
> <br>
> 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<br>
> dead. Would even them making a wrong decision in this regards ? I don't think so.<br>
> <br>
> Fernando<br>
> <br>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, 11:06 Bill Woodcock, <<a href="mailto:woody@pch.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">woody@pch.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> 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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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<br>
> 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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> 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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
></blockquote></div></div></div>