[AusNOG] IPv4

[Paul Wallace]

Deceased Estate auctions always attract lots of passion!

Sent from my iPhone powered by Polyfone Telecom


On 04/03/2013, at 11:36 AM, "Mark Newton" <newton at atdot.dotat.org> wrote:

> 
> On 04/03/2013, at 10:00 AM, Bob Purdon <bobp at purdon.id.au> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> There are two things to keep in mind while having this discussion:
> 
> Global demand for IPv4 is about one /8 per month.
> 
> And we've already had this conversation approximately every month for the last few years :)
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Okay, let's assume you can convince the US military to give up a /8.
> 
> (you can't, but let's play the game anyway)
> 
> If they went through all the effort of renumbering their internal networks
> away from it, they'd give the world one month of growth. 
> 
> So we could put this thread on hold, and restart all the recriminations and
> chest-beating after Easter.
> 
> Alternatively, let's assume we can go to a university and convince them to
> renumber away from a /16 (beside the fact that universities tend to be very
> large enterprises who actually _need_ large swarthes of IPv4 space, but again,
> let's play the game anyway).
> 
> If we were successful, and they renumbered into something else, and gave
> back their /16, that'd give the world approximately 2 hours of growth.
> 
> Now:  Will it take more than two hours to accomplish the renumbering, go through
> the legals, update the IANA documentation, etc?  Pretty sure it will.
> 
> Of course, we're looking at this in an environment where this allegedly 
> unused address space is actually quite valuable, and where the same university
> could simply sell it on the open market for about $14 per address if they 
> weren't using it. That's almost a million bucks for a /16;  If they were genuinely
> "wasting" it, don't you think they'd have sold it already?
> 
>> 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.
> 
> There's never been a requirement to announce space.  Quite a lot of it is
> used for purposes where uniqueness is required, rather than purposes where
> global reachability is required.
> 
> I know at least two organizations with legacy /8's who use enormous quantities
> of it for extranets and intranets which are separate from the internet, but 
> which must be uniquely numbered because the third party enterprises they're
> connecting to aren't separate from the internet.  They can't use RFC1918, so
> their alternatives are to either use registered address space, or to poach
> someone else's registered address space.  Which alternative is better?
> 
>> 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).
> 
> Have you ever tried to merge two companies that both make extensive use of
> net-10?  It's a nightmare.  Far better if at least one of them is using registered
> address space. (IPv6 will make these kinds of network mergers much, much easier,
> for obvious reasons)
> 
>> If you are announcing it, but nothing is listening (even residential DSL users are often pingable and a small percentage have something
>> listening)
> 
> Windows doesn't respond to ping when firewalling is enabled.  Not a good test.
> 
>> I'm sure none of that is perfect, but perhaps it could form the basis for some form of space reclamation policy?
> 
> Is there any point?  
> 
> Let's say you manage to scrounge together half a dozen /8's.  Great, we can 
> start feeling upset about IPv4 again during the second half of this year.
> 
> And this is all in a world where the RIR's don't actually claim any authority
> at all over legacy IP address space, because the recipients were never required
> to agree to their terms and conditions.  If APNIC goes to a Government department
> and says, "Give us back your /16," and the Government department tells them to
> go away, what happens next?
> 
> 
>  - mark
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog