[address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On 26/09/2017 10:26, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:
> If you connect to your upstream with *their* IP addresses and not break
> your /24 into smaller bits and connect your NAT64 or A+P PRR box
> directly to that BGP router, use first usable address as a gateway,
> second address as an interface address for your translation/transition
> box, then you are left with 252 usable addresses for your purpose. That
> means 65.535 ports per address, giving you 16.514.820 usable ports.
> Usually sane people predicts between 700 and 1000 ports per user, and
> that gives you between 16.514 and 23.592 possible users that you can
> serve at the same time and connect them to legacy IPv4 world.
> 
> Now everyone will have to figure out if that's enough or not. :)

Forgot to add (thnx Raymond for reminding me of this issue)...

While the above numbers may seem technically feasible, the hidden (or
not so hidden) forces may want us to go different direction.

Apparently there is a Belgium case:

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2017-ws-214-how-can-we-limit-the-negative-impact-of-carrier-grade-nat-technologies-and


"The emphasis will be put on the Belgium case where the telecom
regulator entered in a voluntary agreement with the 4 biggest ISPs in
2012 for them to limit the number of end-users behind each IPv4
addresses for security purposes (to help to identify end-users when
served with a legal order in the framework of a criminal investigation).
This led to the unintended positive consequence that major Belgium-based
ISPs have made strategic business decision to transition quickly to
IPv6. As a result, today Belgium has the highest IPv6 adoption rate in
the world."

I heard (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that in order to have a
success in this legal investigations, there should not be more than 4 to
6 users behind each IP address. If this is really the case, then both
/22 and /24 are more or less useless for any transition/translation
technique if regulation will ever require this ratio as a requirement.

:(

It's a deep swamp and we created it as an industry with not keeping up
properly and deploying IPv6...

My question here is: Now what?

Cheers, Jan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3976 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20170926/7aee5eb9/attachment.p7s>