This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Ponzone
david.ponzone at ipeva.fr
Tue Jun 14 08:31:23 CEST 2016
But really, if you expect to be taken seriously, you should write your draft about 240/4, not 240/3 :) David Ponzone > Le 14 juin 2016 à 07:38, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> a écrit : > > Good morning Arash, > > * "Arash Naderpour" <arash_mpc at parsun.com> > >> My question is that is this working group the right place to discuss >> about the 240/3 or it should be done in higher level like between >> RIRs or IANA? > > RIPE AP-WG is not the right place to begin this process, the IETF is. > > The process would go something like this: > > You submit a draft to the IETF to direct IANA to do something with with > 240/3, e.g., reclassify it as regular unicast IPv4 address space that > may be distributed to the RIRs. You'll then need to gain consensus for > your draft and have it published as an RFC. > > The /3 would then within six months be split up into five equal parts > and be distributed to each RIR over a period of a few years. ~6.4 /8s > per RIR, that is. The initial and biggest IANA->RIR trance would happen > no later than six months after your RFC was published. (If you're not > happy with that you'd need to seek global consensus between the five RIR > communities to change the «Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 > Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA» policy.) > > The RIPE NCC would add any address space received from the IANA in this > manner to the so-called «last /8» pool. So assuming you've already > received your final /22 under the current policy but want one or more > additional allocations from 240/3, you'll at this point need to return > to the RIPE AP-WG with a proposal to change the so-called «last /8» > policy into something else that would facilitate that. > > Assuming you manage all of the above, all that remains in order to make > 240/3 usable on the public Internet is to convince all the operating > system/device/router vendors in the world to develop and release > software/firmware updates to make 240/3 usable, and then of course to > convince every network operator and end-user on the Internet to > download and install these patches. Devices/software no longer being > supported by the manufacturer would probably need to be replaced > outright. > > If by some miracle you would be able to pull it all off, keep in mind > that the ~107M addresses gained by the RIPE NCC would all be used up > within two years if we return to the pre-depletion allocation policy > and consumption rate. Ask yourself: «then what?» > > Maybe you can now see why folks are telling you that this would be a > colossal waste of time and that your efforts would be much better spent > on IPv6. With IPv6, the process is already underway and most of the > above steps have already been completed, and at the end of that process > we're actually covered for the rest of our lifetimes and beyond. > > Tore > > > *********************************************************************************************************** > Le service MailSecure d'IPeva confirme l'absence de virus et de spam dans ce message. > *********************************************************************************************************** > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]