> On Jul 15, 2015, at 16:45 , Joe Maimon <jmai...@ttec.com> wrote: > > > > Doug Barton wrote: >> On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: >>> I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody >>> other then the ipv6 adherents. >> >> Globally we were burning through about a /8 every month or two in "the >> good old days." So in the best case scenario we'd get 32 more months of >> easy to get IPv4, but at an overwhelming cost to re-implement every >> network stack. >> >> This option was considered back in the early 2000's when I was still >> involved in the discussion, and rejected as impractical. >> > > > Removing experimental status does not equate with the burden of making it > equivalent use to the rest of the address space. > > How about the ARIN burn rate post IANA runout? How long does 16 /8 last then?
Assuming you could somehow make 16 /8s available, do you really think that anyone would accept the idea of allocating all of them to a single RIR, let alone the one in North America? I tend to doubt it. So ARIN’s burn rate post-runout really isn’t all that relevant. > What would be wrong with removing experimental status and allowing one of the > /8 to be used for low barrier to /16 assignment to any party demonstrating a > willingness to coax usability of the space? The wasted effort of people whose time is better spent deploying IPv6. > Yes, any such effort has to run the gauntlet of IETF/IANA/RIR policy. Which I would rather have those folks focused on something useful than wasting their time on this. > CGN /10 managed. This could too, if all the naysayers would just step out of > the way. The /10 did not require modifying every system on the internet or even any systems on the internet. It just required setting aside a block. Even then, it was actually more effort than it should have required, but it was pretty minimal. OTOH, it provided an actual usable solution to a real world problem. What you are proposing just wastes a lot of people’s time with nothing to show for it. Owen