[address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

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.
> ***********************************************************************************************************
> 
>