[address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:28:04AM +0200, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote:
> > It really does not matter whether you're a telco with a million subscribers
> > that only has 10.000 IPv4 addresses, or a small ISP with 10.000 subscribers
> > that only has 1.000 IPv4 addresses.  You're f*cked anyway.
> >
> > The amount of money the big telco has to invent into their carrier grade
> > NAT gear would make your eyes water...  while a small ISP could get this
> > done on a reasonably sized server with Linux on it (and I know some that do).
> About this point. Its clear, but at this moment cant know the legal 
> implementations.
> I'll try to inform, but by the moment, what about if you recieve a court 
> requirment saying: Hey, what customer had that IP Address in that 
> date/hour? The court requirement NEVER said what the customer was doing 
> so, at this moment noone of the "save IP space" mechanism is valid since 
> we wont be able to correctly reply to the court requirement.

And this is different for you as compared to a big Cable ISP exactly why?

Everybody who is growing his IPv4 network is facing the same challenges,
as there are no more IPv4 addresses to sustain the demand.

So yes, if these are the requirements, you will need to do logging of NAT
pool mappings, and depending on the amount of customers you have, some 
pretty expensive storage to hold the data...  (things like A+P / MAP help
here, because you're not randomly masquerading customer IPs, but it will
be done by block).  Be assured, for a telco with a million customers, this
will not be easier or cheaper than for an ISP with 10.000


[ hosting provider ]

> That is true and Im sorry, but with only 1 Public IP Address you can 
> have a really fu**king big cluster, a cloud, whatever you want. If vhost 
> work for ISP Customer, as we said in Spain "another roster would sing"

So maybe changing line of business might be an option here...  we cannot
run multiple of our big hosting customers on a single IP address.  If you
can, this would be significant market advantage.

[..]
> At this moment, Im sure there are LIRs with a /22 who only need a /24 
> and LIRs with a /22 who need more. If the proposal to remove the minimum 
> allocation of /22 goes well, maybe something can be done about this.
> - New LIRs recieving a first allocation of /23 or /24? (And you can say; 
> This will f**k the routing table. But /24 announces already happens)
> - New LIRs can ask for more allocations but in stacks of /24 up to a 
> total of /21?

Yes, this will f**k the routing table.  If we go there, and next thing you
find that ISPs are unwilling to accept these /24s, because their routers'
TCAM is full, who are you going to complain to?

[..]
> Maybe and for the future, we should start talking about what should IANA 
> do about legacy allocations not in use. Maybe forcing them to return 
> space if they dont use/dont want it anymore instead of giving the chance 
> to sell it. Dont know, Im really new to the world of RIRs/LIRs so Im 
> sure you will know more about this than me. This could have been 
> discussed before, dont know.

The only way to *solve* this is to go to IPv6.  Everything else is just
investing into a dead technology, and drawing out the pains.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140703/9000f77a/attachment.sig>