[AusNOG] IPv4

[Mark Andrews]

Not this old, discredited idea again.

In message <5133DD1B.2030904 at purdon.id.au>, Bob Purdon writes:
> On 4/03/13 1:21 AM, Van Der Meulen, M
> > So on one hand I see, large corporate A with more address space than
> > required, abusing the system because they can't be bothered(amongst
> > other reasons) and it doesn't make commercially sense to.
> 
> I reckon one area the relevant NIC's should explore is the reclaiming of 
> unused legacy space.  Some will argue that this was "given" to these 
> organisations many years ago, but things can and do change.

They looked at it years ago and decided it was a waste of money to
persue those that didn't voluntarily return addresses.  Note many
organisations did return addresses.
 
> I'm thinking of the universities that are sitting on /16's, yet 
> announcing only a /24 or two from that range.  I believe the US 
> military, and various large corporations are also guilty of sitting on 
> /8's.

So are you going to pay the costs of renumbering their networks
because the addresses are in use whether you can see that they are
in use or not?

Note just because the addresses are not announce to the public
internet doesn't mean that they are not annouced or need to be
unique with respect to the public internet.  There are networks
that see these announcements and also see those on the public
internet.

> The NIC's should be looking at what is announced and for space that's
> not the owners should be required to announce it (with useful/meaningful
> services occupying it), or hand it back.

So you want the NIC's to break their existing contracts to "reclaim"
addresses that may or may not be in use.  Are you will to pay their
legal fees when it is almost certain that they will loose.

> If it's not in the global routing table then you don't need it (you 
> should renumber into RFC1918 space and NAT, since if you are using the 
> space you're obviously NATing it).

Discredited logic.
 
> If you are announcing it, but nothing is listening (even residential DSL 
> users are often pingable and a small percentage have something
> listening) - then you're probably using it for outward initiated
> connectivity, in which case you can most likely use NAT and don't need 
> the space either.

There are lots of homes that only listen some of the time.  With UPnP
listening gets turned on and off all the time.  The users often don't
know that they are listening.

> An exception would be space recently allocated for which a viable usage
> plan was presented when the space was allocated, and the plan is being
> adhered to.
> 
> I'm sure none of that is perfect, but perhaps it could form the basis 
> for some form of space reclamation policy?
> 
> Sure, it's just delaying the inevitable, so in conjunction with doing 
> that there should be some IPv6 deployment incentive (perhaps allocation 
> of the reclaimed IPv4 space is conditional on the applicant having 
> operational IPv6?)

The inevitable is here now.  The future has arrived.  Get over it
and deploy IPv6.  You will find that most of your equipment already
supports it.  IPv4 is starting to be come a stinking, rotten corpse.

> Just throwing it out there...
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org