Christopher- Reclassifying this space, would add 10+ years onto the free pool for each > RIR. Looking at the APNIC free pool, I would estimate there is about 1/6th > of a /8 pool available for delegation, another 1/6th reserved. > Reclassification would see available pool volumes return to pre-2010 levels. >
Citing Nick Hilliard from another reply, this is an incorrect statement. on this point: prior to RIR depletion, the annual global run-rate on /8s > measured by IANA was ~13 per annum. So that suggests that 240/4 would > provide a little more than 1Y of consumption, assuming no demand > back-pressure, which seems an unlikely assumption. > I share Dave's views, I would like to see 240/4 reclassified as unicast > space and 2 x /8s delegated to each RIR with the /8s for AFRINIC to be held > until their issues have been resolved. > This has been discussed at great length at IETF. The consensus on the question has been consistent for many years now; doing work to free up 12-ish months of space doesn't make much sense when IPv6 exists, along with plenty of transition/translation mechanisms. Unless someone is able to present new arguments that change the current consensus, it's not going to happen. On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 5:54 AM Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.au> wrote: > There really is no reason for 240/4 to remain "reserved". I share Dave's > views, I would like to see 240/4 reclassified as unicast space and 2 x /8s > delegated to each RIR with the /8s for AFRINIC to be held until their > issues have been resolved. > > Reclassifying this space, would add 10+ years onto the free pool for each > RIR. Looking at the APNIC free pool, I would estimate there is about 1/6th > of a /8 pool available for delegation, another 1/6th reserved. > Reclassification would see available pool volumes return to pre-2010 levels. > > https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/ipv4-exhaustion/ > > In the IETF draft that was co-authored by Dave as part of the IPv4 Unicast > Extensions Project, a very strong case was presented to convert this space. > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240-00.html > > Regards, > Christopher Hawker > > On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 20:40, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 11:06 AM Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: >> >> >> >> There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain >> >> assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled with >> >> a header that defines .. >> > >> > >> > Of course correct. It really depends on the vendor / software / >> versions in an environment. A lot of vendors removed that years ago, >> because frankly a lot of large networks have been using 240/4 as pseudo >> RFC1918 for years. Others have worked with smaller vendors and open source >> projects to do the same. >> > >> > It's consistently a topic in the debates about 240/4 reclassification. >> >> There's debates still? I gave up. After making 240/4 and 0/8 work >> across all of linux and BSD and all the daemons besides bird (which >> refused the patch , I took so much flack that I decided I would just >> work on other things. So much of that flack was BS - like if you kill >> the checks in the OS the world will end - that didn't happen. Linux >> has had these two address ranges just work for over 5 years now. >> >> 240/4 is intensely routable and actually used in routers along hops >> inside multiple networks today, but less so as a destination. >> >> I would really like, one day, to see it move from reserved to unicast >> status, officially. I would have loved it if 0/8 was used by a space >> RIR, behind CGNAT, for starters, but with a plan towards making it >> routable. I am not holding my breath. >> >> The principal accomplishment of the whole unicast extensions project >> was to save a nanosecond across all the servers in the world on every >> packet by killing the useless 0/8 check. That patch paid for itself >> the first weekend after that linux kernel deployed. It is the >> simplest, most elegant, and most controversial patch I have ever >> written. >> >> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20430096 >> >> >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 10:45 AM Michael Butler < >> i...@protected-networks.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/10/24 10:12, Tom Beecher wrote: >> >> > Karim- >> >> > >> >> > Please be cautious about this advice, and understand the full >> context. >> >> > >> >> > 240/4 is still classified as RESERVED space. While you would >> certainly >> >> > be able to use it on internal networks if your equipment supports it, >> >> > you cannot use it as publicly routable space. There have been many >> >> > proposals over the years to reclassify 240/4, but that has not >> happened, >> >> > and is unlikely to at any point in the foreseeable future. >> >> >> >> While you may be able to get packets from point A to B in a private >> >> setting, using them might also be .. a challenge. >> >> >> >> There's a whole bunch of software out there that makes certain >> >> assumptions about allowable ranges. That is, they've been compiled with >> >> a header that defines .. >> >> >> >> #define IN_BADCLASS(i) (((in_addr_t)(i) & 0xf0000000) == 0xf0000000) >> >> >> >> Michael >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 40 years of net history, a couple songs: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E >> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos >> >
