[address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)

Hi,
(please see inline)


On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, Martin Hun?k wrote:

> What I'm afraid of is pressure for further deaggregation of those last 
> /24s. Even now in the mailing list there was opinion that just one /24 
> is useless because you can't assign from it to another entity. Not 
> talking about fact that if you have same amount of LIR on waiting list 
> when everybody wants 4x more, the waiting list is 4x longer time-wise. 
> Longer list = less probability of getting IPv4 ~ no more IPv4 -> had to 
> go for IPv6.

Or go to "the IPv4 market".


> If you have /22 you can do that, if you could have /22 but you have 
> chosen /24 (now instead of waiting for /22) - you could have done that 
> and if there won't be enough IPv4 for you that would be just a fact and 
> there would be nothing to do about it. So there won't be such pressure 
> for further deaggregation. At least if IANA won't distribute to RIRs 
> smaller prefixes anyway.
>
> And just why is such deaggregation problem for me? Because we would be 
> spending even more RAM and computation effort on "walking dead" IPv4. 
> And if we start to allow such deaggregation we would end up on single 
> /32 in our routing table. At least for now we all know that if we try to 
> announce /25+ we would have reachability issues. Let's keep it that way.

I agree global routability must remain at /24.

IPv4 is NOT "walking dead". It's the Internet's dominant protocol version, 
whether we like it or not!

How many orgs have gone public about plans to completely drop IPv4?

IPv4 has a serious limitation about "future growth", which IPv6 doesn't 
have. But people are making (a lot of?) money pushing IPv4 numbers 
from hand to  hand, so it is hard for me (at this point, from a research & 
education network background!) to see how IPv4 will stop being the 
dominant version...


Cheers,
Carlos


> Martin