Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Brian Knight via NANOG]

Depends what size block is being traded. Prices for /16 and larger have been flat since 2021.One thing is for sure: the cost for any size block has not dropped back to 2013 levels.Consider also that providers are starting to pass the charges onto their customers, like $DAYJOB-1 (an NSP) and now AWS this year. Those who may not be trading address blocks are starting to feel the bite.-BrianOn Feb 15, 2024, at 5:31 PM, Tom Beecher  wrote:$/IPv4 address peaked in 2021, and has been declining since. On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 16:05 Brian Knight via NANOG  wrote:On 2024-02-15 13:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote:
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
> 
>   The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
>   Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.
> 
> If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
> within a month.

As others have noted, and to paraphrase a long-ago quote from this 
mailing list, I'm sure all of Netflix's competitors hope Netflix does 
that.

I remain hopeful that the climbing price of unique, available IPv4 
addresses eventually forces migration to v6. From my armchair, only 
through economics will this situation will be resolved.

> --lyndon

-Brian

Re: IPv6 uptake (was: The Reg does 240/4)

[Stephen Satchell]

On 2/15/24 9:40 PM, Justin Streiner wrote:

The Internet edge and core portion of deploying IPv6 - dual-stack or
otherwise - is fairly easy. I led efforts to do this at a large .edu
starting in 2010/11.  The biggest hurdles are/were/might still be:
1. Coming up with a good address plan that will do what you want and scale
as needed.  It should also be flexible enough to accommodate re-writes if
you think of something that needs to be added/changed down the road 🙂


Several of the resources and books I picked up over the past five years 
discuss this.  At the leaf level, coming up with a address plan is easy. 
 For example, I define two subnets:  one for public access, one for LAN 
use.  Each subnet has 64K addresses, far more than I need.  The firewall 
protects the LANnet



2. For providers who run older kit, v6 support might still be a bit dodgy.
You might also run into things like TCAM exhaustion, neighbor table
exhaustion, etc.  The point at which box X tips over is often not well
defined and depends on your use case and configuration.


Above my use level as a leaf node.  It may explain part of the situation 
I have with my upstream ISP...but I think the problem is more related to 
account management and not a technical one.



3. The last time I checked, v6 support in firewalls and other middle-mile
devices was still poor.  Hopefully that has gotten better in the last 6-7
years.  My current day job doesn't have me touching firewalls, so I haven't
kept up on developments here.  I recall coming up with a base firewall
ruleset for Cisco ASAs to balance security with the functionality v6 needs
to work correctly.  Hopefully firewall vendors have gotten better about
building templates to handle some of the heavy lifting.


In Linux, there have been significant advances in firewall support. 
Part of that support was in the kernel, part was in the tools.  The 
advent of NFT (NFTABLES) further improves things.  My replacement 
firewall design is to use YAML to define the rules; a Python driver 
converts the data into rules to implement the policy.


Can't speak for others.  By the way, instead of improving IPTABLES to 
handle IPv6, the community build IP6TABLES to support IPv6.  I was told 
that all I needed to do with my BASH-implemented firewall driver was to 
add IP6TABLE commands to the existing IPTABLES rules.  I would have done 
that if my upstream provider wasn't so IPv6-hostile.  I think that would 
have been a mistake.



4. Getting people to unlearn the "NAT=Security" mindset that we were forced
to accept in the v4 world.


That was EASY for me to unlearn.  With IPv4, I never had the luxury of 
subnetting large swaths of addresses.  With IPv6, that's easy, even in 
home networks.




That said, I'm thinking about giving up completely on IPv6 -- too many 
hurdles put in the way by my 800-pound-gorilla ISP.  I'm too old to 
fight the battle any more; the ROI isn't worth the effort.  I'll be dead 
before the lack of IPv6 connectivity becomes a personal problem.

Re: IPv6 uptake (was: The Reg does 240/4)

[Justin Streiner]

The Internet edge and core portion of deploying IPv6 - dual-stack or
otherwise - is fairly easy. I led efforts to do this at a large .edu
starting in 2010/11.  The biggest hurdles are/were/might still be:
1. Coming up with a good address plan that will do what you want and scale
as needed.  It should also be flexible enough to accommodate re-writes if
you think of something that needs to be added/changed down the road :)
2. For providers who run older kit, v6 support might still be a bit dodgy.
You might also run into things like TCAM exhaustion, neighbor table
exhaustion, etc.  The point at which box X tips over is often not well
defined and depends on your use case and configuration.
3. The last time I checked, v6 support in firewalls and other middle-mile
devices was still poor.  Hopefully that has gotten better in the last 6-7
years.  My current day job doesn't have me touching firewalls, so I haven't
kept up on developments here.  I recall coming up with a base firewall
ruleset for Cisco ASAs to balance security with the functionality v6 needs
to work correctly.  Hopefully firewall vendors have gotten better about
building templates to handle some of the heavy lifting.
4. Getting people to unlearn the "NAT=Security" mindset that we were forced
to accept in the v4 world.

Thank you
jms

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 8:43 PM John Levine  wrote:

> It appears that Stephen Satchell  said:
> >Several people in NANOG have opined that there are a number of mail
> >servers on the Internet operating with IPv6 addresses.  OK.  I have a
> >mail server, which has been on the Internet for decades.  On IPv4.
> >
> >For the last four years, every attempt to get a PTR record in ip6.arpa
> >from my ISP has been rejected, usually with a nasty dismissive.
>
> I don't think you'll get much disagreement that AT&T is not a great ISP.
>
> One straightforward workaround is to get an IPv6 tunnel from
> Hurricane. It's free, it works, and they will delegate the rDNS
> anywhere you want. My local ISP doesn't do IPv6 at all (they're a
> rural phone company who of course say you are the only person who's
> ever asked) so until they do, HE is a quite adequate option.
>
> R's,
> John
>

Re: IPv6 uptake (was: The Reg does 240/4)

[John Levine]

It appears that Stephen Satchell  said:
>Several people in NANOG have opined that there are a number of mail 
>servers on the Internet operating with IPv6 addresses.  OK.  I have a 
>mail server, which has been on the Internet for decades.  On IPv4.
>
>For the last four years, every attempt to get a PTR record in ip6.arpa 
>from my ISP has been rejected, usually with a nasty dismissive.

I don't think you'll get much disagreement that AT&T is not a great ISP.

One straightforward workaround is to get an IPv6 tunnel from
Hurricane. It's free, it works, and they will delegate the rDNS
anywhere you want. My local ISP doesn't do IPv6 at all (they're a
rural phone company who of course say you are the only person who's
ever asked) so until they do, HE is a quite adequate option.

R's,
John

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Tom Beecher]

$/IPv4 address peaked in 2021, and has been declining since.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 16:05 Brian Knight via NANOG 
wrote:

> On 2024-02-15 13:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote:
> > I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
> >
> >   The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
> >   Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.
> >
> > If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
> > within a month.
>
> As others have noted, and to paraphrase a long-ago quote from this
> mailing list, I'm sure all of Netflix's competitors hope Netflix does
> that.
>
> I remain hopeful that the climbing price of unique, available IPv4
> addresses eventually forces migration to v6. From my armchair, only
> through economics will this situation will be resolved.
>
> > --lyndon
>
> -Brian
>

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Brian Knight via NANOG]

On 2024-02-15 13:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

  The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
  Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.

If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
within a month.


As others have noted, and to paraphrase a long-ago quote from this 
mailing list, I'm sure all of Netflix's competitors hope Netflix does 
that.


I remain hopeful that the climbing price of unique, available IPv4 
addresses eventually forces migration to v6. From my armchair, only 
through economics will this situation will be resolved.



--lyndon


-Brian

Re: IPv6 uptake (was: The Reg does 240/4)

[Mark Andrews]

Well all that shows is that your ISP  is obstructionist. If they can can enter 
a PTR record or delegate the reverse range to you for your IPv4 server they can 
do it for your IPv6 addresses. In most cases it is actually easier as address 
space is assigned on nibble boundaries (/48, /52, /56, /60, :64) so there isn’t 
a need to do multiple delegations and RFC2317 style “delegations” aren’t needed 
in IPv6. If there is a non nibble assignment just do multiple sequential 
delegations (2, 4 or 8). 

It isn’t hard to type the reverse prefix into a zone then ns then the name of a 
server, bump the serial and reload it.

e.g.

e.b.c.2.6.0.7.d.0.2.2.2.ip6.arpa. ns ns1.example.com.

Good luck.

-- 
Mark Andrews

> On 16 Feb 2024, at 04:48, Stephen Satchell  wrote:
> 
> Several people in NANOG have opined that there are a number of mail servers 
> on the Internet operating with IPv6 addresses.  OK.  I have a mail server, 
> which has been on the Internet for decades.  On IPv4.
> 
> For the last four years, every attempt to get a PTR record in ip6.arpa from 
> my ISP has been rejected, usually with a nasty dismissive.
> 
> Today, I'm trying again to get that all-important PTR record.  If I'm 
> successful, then I expect to have my mail server fully up and running in the 
> IPv6 space within 72 hours, or when the DNS changes propagate, whichever is 
> longer.

Re: mail and IPv6, not The Reg does 240/4

[Tim Howe]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 18:25:03 -0800
Stephen Satchell  wrote:

> On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
> > The best option is what is happening right now:  you can’t get new IPv4
> > addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6.  The free market
> >   is solving the problem right now.  Another solution isn’t needed.  
> 
> Really?  How many mail servers are up on IPv6?  How many legacy mail 
> clients can handle IPv6?  How many MTA software packages can handle IPv6 
> today "right out of the box" without specific configuration?

Mine have been dual stack for a while (6 years?  8 years? don't
exactly recall).  However, I remember being enough of an early v6
adopter that it was a bit of a challenge to get IPv6 glue records set
up for our DNS servers (that was long before I was brave enough to have
my email servers on v6, though).

> Does any IPv6 enabled ISP provide PTR records for mail servers?

We do, of course, I can't speak for others.  We also
sub-delegate on request.  However, we are small/local and cater to small
businesses.

> How does Google handle mail from an IPv6 server?

I remember Google being where some of my first v6 email was
coming from and going to.

I would advise that if you allow your MTA to attach to all IPv6
addresses that you make sure all of them have REV PTR.  Google, at
least last time I looked, would deny email via IPv6 based solely on REV
PTR errors.  They are more forgiving over v4, but I suspect that
has/had to do with more mature spam filtering considerations on v4 than
v6.
I once made the mistake of not having one of my secondary
addresses set up with a REV PTR and Google rejected any email that came
from that IP.

--TimH

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

For everyone’s amusement:
[root@owen log]# grep 'IPv6' maillog | wc -l
2648
[root@owen log]# grep 'IPv4' maillog | wc -l
0


Now admittedly, this isn’t really a fair report because sendmail doesn’t tag 
IPv4 address as “IPv4” like it does IPv6 addresses.

e.g.: Feb 15 19:22:59 owen sendmail[1545111]: STARTTLS=server, relay=localhost 
[IPv6:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1], version=TLSv1.3, verify=NOT, 
cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384, bits=256/256

A slightly more fair version:
[root@owen log]# grep 'connect from' maillog | wc -l
14547
[root@owen log]# grep 'connect from' maillog | grep IPv6 | wc -l
431


Which shows that 431 of 14547 total connections came via IPv6 during the log 
period (which begins 00:00:39 UTC Feb. 11) and continues to the time of this 
writing.

However, that is overly generous to IPv4 because a much higher percentage of 
the connections on IPv6 result in actual mail transfer while many of the IPv4 
connections are various failed authentication attempts, attempts to deliver 
rejected (SPAM, other) messages, and other various failures to complete the 
delivery process (disconnects after EHLO, etc.).

As stated earlier, approximately 40% of all mail received by my MTA arrives 
over IPv6.

FWIW, most of my netflix viewing is done via IPv6 as well.

turning off IPv4 is a tall order and a huge risk for Netflix to take, so I 
don’t see that happening. You’re not wrong about the likely impact, but it 
would be a rough contest between ISPs telling their customers “Netflix turned 
us off, blame them” and Netflix telling its customers “We’re no longer 
supporting the legacy internet protocol and your ISP needs to modernize.”. In 
the end it likely turns into a pox on both their houses and the ISPs in 
question and Netflix both lose a bunch of customers in the process.

OTOH, as new products come out that are unable to get IPv4 and are delivered 
over IPv6 only, this will eventually have roughly the same effect without the 
avoidable business risk involved in Netflix leading the way. this is my primary 
argument against the proposal, it will further delay this inevitability which, 
in turn, prolongs the pain period of this transition. While a handful of new 
entrants might benefit in some way in the short term from such a thing, in the 
long term, it’s actually harmful to everyone overall.

Owen


> On Feb 15, 2024, at 11:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) 
>  wrote:
> 
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
> 
>  The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
>  Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.
> 
> If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
> within a month.
> 
> --lyndon

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 11:10 AM Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)
 wrote:
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
>
>   The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
>   Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.
>
> If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
> within a month.

If only a couple of large businesses would slit their throats by
refusing to service a large swath of their paying customers, IPv6
deployment would surely accelerate.


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: mail and IPv6, not The Reg does 240/4

[Matthew McGehrin]

Tom,

The solution is easy, just have a dual-stack MX record.

$ host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.
gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com has address 172.253.115.26
gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2607:f8b0:4004:c06::1a

Servers using IPv6 connect to IPv6 as needed.

Matthew

On 2/14/2024 9:26 PM, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Stephen Satchell  said:
>> On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
>>> The best option is what is happening right now:  you can’t get new IPv4
>>> addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6.  The free market
>>>is solving the problem right now.  Another solution isn’t needed.
>> Really?  How many mail servers are up on IPv6?  How many legacy mail
>> clients can handle IPv6?  How many MTA software packages can handle IPv6
>> tod

Re: Lax dc / ix questiob

[Adam Brenner via NANOG]

On 2/12/24 06:16, mehmet at akcin.net (Mehmet) wrote:

Hey there

Is it possible to connect Any2 IX from Equinix LA?


Yes, its possible but might not make financial sense.

You will need a connection from Equinix Los Angeles (any of their 7 
datacenters) over to any of CoreSite's datacenters (any of their 3).


The fee for this is more expensive then a traditional "cross connect" in 
that you will be using an on-net carrier that exists in both Equinix and 
CoreSite to provide you a layer 2 connection.


This could be anyone like Cogent, Zayo, etc. Or a dark fiber service 
like American Dark Fiber[1]. Or even another customer who has a presence 
in both.


The lowest cost would be to find another customer who has a presence in 
both and leverage an existing connection they have.



Sadly, this is only half the battle. Once you get a connection from 
Equinix to CoreSite, you need to contact CoreSite sales to get on the 
Any2West.


If you have a cabinet at any of CoreSite's datacenter, this is a simple 
cross connect fee to Any2West.


However if you do *not* have a cabinet, then you can connect to Any2West 
via a "Remote Connection." A remote connection will allow you to connect 
to Any2West directly from an on-net carrier. CoreSite will charge you a 
monthly fee for this, on top of what ever it costs you to get a layer 2 
connection from Equinix to CoreSite.


Run the math and see if it makes sense to get a cabinet at CoreSite vs a 
remote connection. In our case, the cost was about the same.


As someone who has a cabinet next door to One Wilshire, all the cross 
connects and layer 2 fees got very expensive.




OneWilshire used to be the place to be, is this still the case? I see in
peeringdb Equinix has added a lot of networks.


From my experience, Any2West[2] is still the most connected IXP for 
SoCal. The Equinix IXP[3] is closely matched when you look at the total 
number of members but also who is on there.


Here are other IXPs in SoCal that you may want to take a look at.

BBIX[4]
MegaIX Los Angeles[5]
NYIIX Los Angeles[6]

MorePeering / Peering.LA [7] -- this one looks interesting as it appears 
to be under development but community driven one.


Note: Some of these IXP require a monthly fee to join, on top of a cross 
connect fee an on-net carrier fee depending on where their POPs are.



Appreciate if someone with recent experience to share their
recommendations. The goal is to reach as many as asian isps thru pni/ix
connectivity


Look at the BBIX IXP[4] and see if any of those members are interesting 
to you.


[1]: https://americandarkfiber.com/
[2]: https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/142
[3]: https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/4
[4]: https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/3185
[5]: https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/1175
[6]: https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/23
[7]: https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/4309

Hope this helps!
-Adam

--
Adam Brenner
https://aeb.io/

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

  The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
  Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.

If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
within a month.

--lyndon

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)]

> >  How many legacy mail clients can handle IPv6?

I would suspect all of them, since MUAs, by definition, are not
involved in any mail transport operations.  But if you're thinking
of MUAs that use Submission, they are unlikely to care one whit
what the underlying transport is.  You configure a submission
hostname, and the client just hands that off to the underlying OS
to deal with.  It doesn't care what parameters are passed to the
connect() call under the hood.

As for mail servers handling v6 out of the box, I am not familiar
with *any* currently shipping MTA that does NOT do v6 with no
configuration required.

--lyndon

RE: NANOG 90 Attendance?

[Howard, Lee via NANOG]

From: Tom Beecher 
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:53 AM
To: Howard, Lee 
Cc: Warren Kumari ; nanog 
Subject: Re: NANOG 90 Attendance?

This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links 
and attachments.



Maybe this should have gone to the members mailing list, but I couldn’t find 
one.


memb...@nanog.org


Thank you, Tom. I was unable to find that piece of information to find by:

  *   Searching “Member list” on the NANOG web page
  *   Browsing the options under “Members” on the site
  *   Reading the list of mailing lists at 
https://nanog.org/nanog-mailing-list/nanog-mailing-lists/
  *   Googling “NANOG members mailing list”

Lee

IPv6 uptake (was: The Reg does 240/4)

[Stephen Satchell]

Several people in NANOG have opined that there are a number of mail 
servers on the Internet operating with IPv6 addresses.  OK.  I have a 
mail server, which has been on the Internet for decades.  On IPv4.


For the last four years, every attempt to get a PTR record in ip6.arpa 
from my ISP has been rejected, usually with a nasty dismissive.


Today, I'm trying again to get that all-important PTR record.  If I'm 
successful, then I expect to have my mail server fully up and running in 
the IPv6 space within 72 hours, or when the DNS changes propagate, 
whichever is longer.

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Tom Beecher]

>
> This is the first time we've presented this case so I'm uncertain as to
> how you've come to the conclusion that I've "presented [my] case numerous
> times" and that we "continue to persist".


This may be the first time your group has presented your opinions on 240/4,
but you are not the first. It's been brought up at IETF multiple times,
multiple drafts submitted, multiple debates / convos / arguments had.

At the end of the day, the following is still true.

1. Per RFC2860, IANA maintains the registry of IPv4 allocations to RIRs,
and the IPv4 Special Address Space Registry.
2. The IPv4 Special Address Space Registry records 240.0.0.0/4 as Reserved
, per RFC1112, Section 4.
3. Any changes to the IPv4 Special Address Space Registry require IETF
Review , RFC7249, Section 2.2.
4. IETF Review is defined in RFC5226.

In summation, the status of 240/4 CAN ONLY be changed IF the IETF process
results in an RFC that DIRECTS IANA to update the IPv4 Special Address
Space Registry. To date, the IETF process has not done so.

Making the case on mailing lists , forums, or media outlets may try to win
hearts and minds, but unless the IETF process is engaged with, nothing will
change. Of course, some will want to reply that 'the IETF are meanies and
don't want to do what we want'. All I'd say to that is , welcome to the
process of making / changing internet standards.  :)



On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 6:29 AM Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> Owen,
>
> This is the first time we've presented this case so I'm uncertain as to
> how you've come to the conclusion that I've "presented [my] case numerous
> times" and that we "continue to persist".
>
> I also don't know how us diverting energy from 240/4 towards IPv6
> deployment in privately-owned networks will help. People cannot be made to
> adopt IPv6 (although IMO they should) and until they are ready to do so we
> must continue to support IPv4, for new and existing networks. While we can
> encourage and help people move towards IPv6 we can't force adoption through
> prevention of access to IPv4.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> --
> *From:* Owen DeLong 
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2024 4:23 AM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* Tom Beecher ; North American Operators' Group <
> nanog@nanog.org>
> *Subject:* Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
> This gift from the bad idea fairy just keeps on giving. You’ve presented
> your case numerous times. The IETF has repeatedly found no consensus for it
> and yet you persist.
>
> Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this
> wasted effort had been put into that, instead.
>
> Owen
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2024, at 14:16, Christopher Hawker 
> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Tom,
>
> We aren't trying to have a debate on this. All we can do is present our
> case, explain our reasons and hope that we can gain a consensus from the
> community.
>
> I understand that some peers don't like the idea of this happening and yes
> we understand the technical work behind getting this across the line. It's
> easy enough for us to say "this will never happen" or to put it into the
> "too hard" basket, however, the one thing I can guarantee is that will
> never happen, if nothing is done.
>
> Let's not think about ourselves for a moment, and think about the
> potential positive impact that this could bring.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> --
> *From:* Tom Beecher 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:23 AM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* North American Operators' Group ;
> aus...@lists.ausnog.net ; Christopher Hawker via
> sanog ; apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net <
> apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
>
> Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This
> won't be easy to accomplish and it will take some time.
>
>
>  It won't ever be 'accomplished' by trying to debate this in the media.
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:05 AM Christopher Hawker 
> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> [Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on AusNOG,
> SANOG and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers to engage in the
> discussion on their respective forums.]
>
> Just to shed some light on the article and our involvement...
>
> Since September 1981, 240/4 has been reserved for future use, see
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml.
> This space has always been reserved for future use and given the global
> shortage of available space for new network operators we feel it is
> appropriate for this space to be reclassified as Unicast space available
> for delegation by IANA/PTI to RIRs on behalf of ICANN.
>
> At present, the IP space currently available for RIRs to delegate to new
> members is minimal, if any at all. The primary goal of our call for change
> is to afford smaller players who are wanting to enter the industry the
> opportunity to do so without having to shell out the big dollars for space.
> Altho

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Feb 15, 2024, at 03:29, Christopher Hawker  wrote:
> 
> 
> Owen,
> 
> This is the first time we've presented this case so I'm uncertain as to how 
> you've come to the conclusion that I've "presented [my] case numerous times" 
> and that we "continue to persist".
> 
It may be your first time at bat, but this proposal has been rejected in the 
IETF many times before over at least 2 decades. 

> I also don't know how us diverting energy from 240/4 towards IPv6 deployment 
> in privately-owned networks will help. People cannot be made to adopt IPv6 
> (although IMO they should) and until they are ready to do so we must continue 
> to support IPv4, for new and existing networks. While we can encourage and 
> help people move towards IPv6 we can't force adoption through prevention of 
> access to IPv4.

Actually, no,  no we should not continue to support IPv4. The sooner there are 
real world consequences to those networks that have failed to implement IPv6, 
the sooner they will finally do so. 

Unfortunately, yes, this will be temporarily painful to new entrants that are 
IPv6 only until there is a sufficient critical mass of them to drive the 
remaining (and ever decreasing) IPv4 only networks to finally act. 

Delaying that inevitability only prolongs this pain and does not improve or 
promote any common good. 

Owen

Re: NANOG 90 Attendance?

[Tom Beecher]

> Maybe this should have gone to the members mailing list, but I couldn’t
> find one.
>
>
>

memb...@nanog.org

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:31 AM Howard, Lee via NANOG 
wrote:

> I’m jumping on an earlier part of the thread.
>
>
>
> Based on what I heard at the Members Meeting and several follow up hallway
> conversations, I think:
>
>- NANOG needs a focus group on attendees. A survey won’t do it, we
>need a deep dive into roles, interests, career level, and why they attend.
>- Somebody or somebodies should be specifically tasked with following
>up with every one of the 120 newcomer attendees to ask what it would take
>to get them to come back. Our conversion rate to repeat attendee is a key
>performance indicator. There’s a great Newcomer Orientation just before
>conference opening; let’s have a Newcomer Lessons Learned at the end.
>- Poll attendees on relative importance of location, registration fee,
>programming, side meeting space. Iterate based on comments (location =
>airport? Hotel? Nearby amenities? Proximity to home?)
>- Survey sponsors. I give feedback to staff and occasional board
>members, but there’s no clear way to gather information.
>- These should be sent to the Members in advance of a Members Meeting
>to discuss. Needs more than 20 minutes of a 45 minute meeting before main
>programming.
>- Consider empaneling a Mission Committee to review NANOG’s mission
>and how to fulfill it.
>
>
>
> Other thoughts, which I couldn’t submit in a survey or find another way to
> send to the board or staff:
>
>- I suggested in San Diego and now bring to the list: the last item on
>the agenda should be 15-30 minutes of “What are you taking home from this
>NANOG?”
>   - Helps remind people what value they got
>   - Lets us know what people found most valuable (Specific sessions?
>   deals done? Trends in hallway topics?)
>   - Solidifies for people what they can offer their boss as the value
>   of sending them to NANOG
>- We should look into cooperating with other network organizations for
>meetings. WISPAmerica, NRECA, NTCA, Fiber Connect, SCTE, IETF
>- ARIN has a help desk in the main hall. Allow other sponsors to put
>up a Help Desk. Put up a sign showing which company will be there for which
>half-day increment. I think a lot of attendees would find value in the
>ability to sit down with a senior sales engineer at their favorite router,
>optical, or intelligence vendor to say, “Here’s my problem,” even if many
>of those conversations resulted in “Let’s schedule time to discuss in more
>depth.”
>   - Price it like BnG—you’re getting ½ day of visibility, less
>   distraction than meal/break sponsors
>   - Require swag to be incidentals like pens and stickers—if you’re
>   getting a mad rush of people, you’re missing the point
>
>
>
>
>
> This can’t all be done in time for Kansas City, but maybe some of it can
> be. Given that hotel contracts are negotiated two years in advance, I
> figure we have about two years to get this right before it’s too late to
> steer the ship away from the rocks.
>
>
>
> Let me close with: I think we have an excellent board, all of whom love
> this community and have spent years thinking about this. The lack of a CEO
> is a problem soon to be resolved, and that will help support the already
> excellent staff. There are themes we’ve been hearing for several meetings
> in a row, and I know the board is giving them a lot of thought, and I’m
> just trying to support those efforts from outside the board.
>
>
>
> Maybe this should have gone to the members mailing list, but I couldn’t
> find one.
>
>
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG  *On
> Behalf Of *Warren Kumari
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 11, 2024 2:50 PM
> *To:* Mike Hammett 
> *Cc:* nanog 
> *Subject:* Re: NANOG 90 Attendance?
>
>
>
> You don't often get email from war...@kumari.net. Learn why this is
> important 
>
> *This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with
> links and attachments.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 8:31 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
> I haven't been to a NANOG meeting in a while. While going through the
> attendee list for NANOG 90 to try to book meetings with people, I noticed a
> lack of (or extremely minimal) attendance by several organizations that
> have traditionally had several employees attend. I've also noticed that
> some organizations I had an interest in were only sending sales people, not
> technical people.
>
>
>
>
>
> There have been a few changes - part of this is driven by post-pandemic
> decreased travel budget in many organizations, part by industry changes and
> consolidation, but also a fair bit seems to be because the tone of NANOG
> has changed and become much more of a polished, sales-y feeling event than
> it used to be….
>
>
>
> Here is the curren

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Feb 14, 2024, at 18:25, Stephen Satchell  wrote:
> 
> On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
>> The best option is what is happening right now:  you can’t get new IPv4
>> addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6.  The free market
>>  is solving the problem right now.  Another solution isn’t needed.
> 
> Really?  How many mail servers are up on IPv6?  How many legacy mail clients 
> can handle IPv6?  How many MTA software packages can handle IPv6 today "right 
> out of the box" without specific configuration?

Quite a few, actually. About 40% of my email comes and goes via IPv6. 

Sendai, postfix, outlook, and several others all handle IPv6 without need for 
any more IPv6 specific configuration than is required for IPv4. 

> 
> Does any IPv6 enabled ISP provide PTR records for mail servers?

Yes. Most of the transit providers I deal with offer ip6.arpa delegation at 
least. You can either stand up your own NS or use any of a variety of free DNS 
providers to host that delegation. 

> 
> How does Google handle mail from an IPv6 server?

So far I’ve had no issues exchanging mail with Google, Yahoo, or MSN (former 
Hotmail) on IPv6. 

> 
> The Internet is not just the Web.

True. Guess what… SSH, VNC, SMTP, IMAP, and many other things are working just 
fine on IPv6. 

IPv6 isn’t just the web either. IPv6 is the modern internet. 

Owen

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

There is one other mechanism available that has not yet come into play. One 
which this proposal seeks to further delay. In fact IMHO, the one that is most 
likely to ultimately succeed…

At some point new entrants will be unable to obtain IPv4. When there is a 
sufficient critical mass of those that IPv4 only sites cannot reach, those 
sites will be faced with an ROI on IPv6 deployment they can no longer ignore. 

Hence, not only is this bad idea a waste of effort, but it’s actually harmful 
in the short, medium, and long terms. 

Owen


> On Feb 14, 2024, at 15:35, Christopher Hawker  wrote:
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> If you feel that it is wasted time, you are welcome to not partake in the 
> discussion. Your remarks have been noted.
> 
> It's all well and good to say that "more sites could have IPv6 if time wasn't 
> being wasted on 240/4" however we can only do so much regarding the 
> deployment of v6 within networks we manage. All we can do is educate people 
> on the importance of IPv6 uptake, we can not force people to adopt it. The 
> only way to rapidly accelerate the uptake of IPv6 is for networks is to 
> either offer better rates for v6 transit, or disable v4 connectivity 
> completely.
> 
> Otherwise v6 connectivity is going to dawdle at the current rate it is.
> 
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> From: NANOG  on behalf of John 
> Levine 
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:11 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org 
> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
>  
> It appears that William Herrin  said:
> >On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:23 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG  
> >wrote:
> >> Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this 
> >> wasted effort had been put into that, instead.
> >
> >"Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking;
> 
> Well, OK, think how many more sites could hav IPv6 if people weren't
> wasting time arguing about this nonsense.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> 

RE: NANOG 90 Attendance?

[Howard, Lee via NANOG]

I'm jumping on an earlier part of the thread.

Based on what I heard at the Members Meeting and several follow up hallway 
conversations, I think:

  *   NANOG needs a focus group on attendees. A survey won't do it, we need a 
deep dive into roles, interests, career level, and why they attend.
  *   Somebody or somebodies should be specifically tasked with following up 
with every one of the 120 newcomer attendees to ask what it would take to get 
them to come back. Our conversion rate to repeat attendee is a key performance 
indicator. There's a great Newcomer Orientation just before conference opening; 
let's have a Newcomer Lessons Learned at the end.
  *   Poll attendees on relative importance of location, registration fee, 
programming, side meeting space. Iterate based on comments (location = airport? 
Hotel? Nearby amenities? Proximity to home?)
  *   Survey sponsors. I give feedback to staff and occasional board members, 
but there's no clear way to gather information.
  *   These should be sent to the Members in advance of a Members Meeting to 
discuss. Needs more than 20 minutes of a 45 minute meeting before main 
programming.
  *   Consider empaneling a Mission Committee to review NANOG's mission and how 
to fulfill it.

Other thoughts, which I couldn't submit in a survey or find another way to send 
to the board or staff:

  *   I suggested in San Diego and now bring to the list: the last item on the 
agenda should be 15-30 minutes of "What are you taking home from this NANOG?"
 *   Helps remind people what value they got
 *   Lets us know what people found most valuable (Specific sessions? deals 
done? Trends in hallway topics?)
 *   Solidifies for people what they can offer their boss as the value of 
sending them to NANOG
  *   We should look into cooperating with other network organizations for 
meetings. WISPAmerica, NRECA, NTCA, Fiber Connect, SCTE, IETF
  *   ARIN has a help desk in the main hall. Allow other sponsors to put up a 
Help Desk. Put up a sign showing which company will be there for which half-day 
increment. I think a lot of attendees would find value in the ability to sit 
down with a senior sales engineer at their favorite router, optical, or 
intelligence vendor to say, "Here's my problem," even if many of those 
conversations resulted in "Let's schedule time to discuss in more depth."
 *   Price it like BnG-you're getting ½ day of visibility, less distraction 
than meal/break sponsors
 *   Require swag to be incidentals like pens and stickers-if you're 
getting a mad rush of people, you're missing the point


This can't all be done in time for Kansas City, but maybe some of it can be. 
Given that hotel contracts are negotiated two years in advance, I figure we 
have about two years to get this right before it's too late to steer the ship 
away from the rocks.

Let me close with: I think we have an excellent board, all of whom love this 
community and have spent years thinking about this. The lack of a CEO is a 
problem soon to be resolved, and that will help support the already excellent 
staff. There are themes we've been hearing for several meetings in a row, and I 
know the board is giving them a lot of thought, and I'm just trying to support 
those efforts from outside the board.

Maybe this should have gone to the members mailing list, but I couldn't find 
one.

Lee


From: NANOG  On Behalf 
Of Warren Kumari
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2024 2:50 PM
To: Mike Hammett 
Cc: nanog 
Subject: Re: NANOG 90 Attendance?

You don't often get email from war...@kumari.net. 
Learn why this is important
This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links 
and attachments.






On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 8:31 AM, Mike Hammett 
mailto:na...@ics-il.net>> wrote:
I haven't been to a NANOG meeting in a while. While going through the attendee 
list for NANOG 90 to try to book meetings with people, I noticed a lack of (or 
extremely minimal) attendance by several organizations that have traditionally 
had several employees attend. I've also noticed that some organizations I had 
an interest in were only sending sales people, not technical people.


There have been a few changes - part of this is driven by post-pandemic 
decreased travel budget in many organizations, part by industry changes and 
consolidation, but also a fair bit seems to be because the tone of NANOG has 
changed and become much more of a polished, sales-y feeling event than it used 
to be

Here is the current NANOG agenda:
https://www.nanog.org/events/nanog-90/agenda/

Here is the agenda from 20 years ago:
https://www.nanog.org/events/nanog-30/nanog-30-agenda-2/

This time I've received at least 6 phone calls along this line of "Hi, I'm 
[person] from [company]. We are a NANOG sponsor and we'd like to personally 
invite you to a very special [breakfast/lunch/dinner] with our [CEO/CTO]. 
They'd love to 

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 3:08 AM Christopher Hawker  wrote:
> The idea to this is to allow new networks to emerge
> onto the internet, without potentially having to fork
> out substantial amounts of money.

Hi Chris,

I think that would be the worst possible use for 240/4. The last thing
new entrants need is IP address space with complex and quirky legacy
issues.

No-sale on the money issue too. I did a cost analysis years ago on the
money involved in "the rest of us" accepting a route announcement into
the DFZ. The short version is that if you can't afford IPv4 addresses
at the current market prices, you don't belong here. Your presence
with a /24 will collectively cost us more than you spent, just in the
first year.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Christopher Hawker  said:
> The idea to this is to allow new networks to emerge onto the internet, 
> without potentially having to fork out substantial amounts of money.

There is a substatial amount of money involved in trying to make 240/4
usable on the Internet.  Network equipment vendors, software vendors,
and companies and users currently operating on the Internet will have to
spend time and money to make that happen.

So basically, you are looking for everyone currently involved in the
Internet operations to subsidize these theoretical new companies, which
may be competitors, may or may not succeed (lots of new companies fail
for reasons unrelated to IPv4 address space cost), etc.

Are you also looking for new rules to impose additional limits on
transfers of 240/4 space?  Because since you want this space to go to
new companies, a bunch of them will fail (as a lot of companies do not
succeed) and be bought out by existing larger companies, just shifting
that 240/4 space right back into the same hands.  In fact, it would be
an obvious incentive to start a venture that can qualify for 240/4
space, only to turn around and sell the business to a pre-existing
company that wants more IPv4 space.

If you want 240/4 to be reserved for these new companies, you haven't
identified ANY reason for ANY existing company or user to exert any
resources, other than "but I want it".
-- 
Chris Adams 

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christopher Hawker]

Owen,

This is the first time we've presented this case so I'm uncertain as to how 
you've come to the conclusion that I've "presented [my] case numerous times" 
and that we "continue to persist".

I also don't know how us diverting energy from 240/4 towards IPv6 deployment in 
privately-owned networks will help. People cannot be made to adopt IPv6 
(although IMO they should) and until they are ready to do so we must continue 
to support IPv4, for new and existing networks. While we can encourage and help 
people move towards IPv6 we can't force adoption through prevention of access 
to IPv4.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

From: Owen DeLong 
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 4:23 AM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: Tom Beecher ; North American Operators' Group 

Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

This gift from the bad idea fairy just keeps on giving. You’ve presented your 
case numerous times. The IETF has repeatedly found no consensus for it and yet 
you persist.

Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this wasted 
effort had been put into that, instead.

Owen


On Feb 13, 2024, at 14:16, Christopher Hawker  wrote:


Hi Tom,

We aren't trying to have a debate on this. All we can do is present our case, 
explain our reasons and hope that we can gain a consensus from the community.

I understand that some peers don't like the idea of this happening and yes we 
understand the technical work behind getting this across the line. It's easy 
enough for us to say "this will never happen" or to put it into the "too hard" 
basket, however, the one thing I can guarantee is that will never happen, if 
nothing is done.

Let's not think about ourselves for a moment, and think about the potential 
positive impact that this could bring.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

From: Tom Beecher 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:23 AM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: North American Operators' Group ; aus...@lists.ausnog.net 
; Christopher Hawker via sanog ; 
apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This won't 
be easy to accomplish and it will take some time.

 It won't ever be 'accomplished' by trying to debate this in the media.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:05 AM Christopher Hawker 
mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.au>> wrote:
Hello all,

[Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on AusNOG, SANOG 
and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers to engage in the discussion on 
their respective forums.]

Just to shed some light on the article and our involvement...

Since September 1981, 240/4 has been reserved for future use, see 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml. 
This space has always been reserved for future use and given the global 
shortage of available space for new network operators we feel it is appropriate 
for this space to be reclassified as Unicast space available for delegation by 
IANA/PTI to RIRs on behalf of ICANN.

At present, the IP space currently available for RIRs to delegate to new 
members is minimal, if any at all. The primary goal of our call for change is 
to afford smaller players who are wanting to enter the industry the opportunity 
to do so without having to shell out the big dollars for space. Although I do 
not agree with IP space being treated as a commodity (as this was not what it 
was intended to be), those who can afford to purchase space may do so and those 
who cannot should be able to obtain space from their respective RIR without 
having to wait over a year in some cases just to obtain space. It's not 
intended to flood the market with resources that can be sold off to the highest 
bidder, and this can very well be a way for network operators to plan to 
properly roll out IPv6. At this point in time, the uptake and implementation of 
IPv6 is far too low (only 37% according to https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6) 
for new networks to deploy IPv6 single-stack, meaning that we need to continue 
supporting IPv4 deployments.

The reallocation of IPv4 space marked as Future Use would not restrict or 
inhibit the deployment of IPv6, if anything, in our view it will help the 
deployment through allowing these networks to service a greater number of 
customers than what a single /24 v4 prefix will allow. Entire regions of an 
economy have the potential to be serviced by a single /23 IPv4 prefix when used 
in conjunction with IPv6 space.

Now, some have argued that we should not do anything with IPv4 and simply let 
it die out. IPv4 will be around for the foreseeable future and while it is, we 
need to allow new operators to continue deploying networks. It is unfair of us 
to say "Let's all move towards IPv6 and just let IPv4 die" however the reality 
of the situation is that while we continue to treat it as a commodity and allow 
v6 uptake to progress as slowly as it is, we need to conti

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Dave Taht]

I attempted with as much nuance and humor as I could muster, to
explain and summarize the ipv4 exhaustion problem, and CGNAT, the
240/4 controversy as well as the need to continue making the IPv6
transition, on this podcast yesterday.

https://hackaday.com/2024/02/14/floss-weekly-episode-769-10-more-internet/

Enjoy.

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christopher Hawker]

Hi Christian,

The idea to this is to allow new networks to emerge onto the internet, without 
potentially having to fork out substantial amounts of money.

I am of the view that networks large enough to require more than a /8 v4 for a 
private network, would be in the position to move towards IPv6-only. Meta has 
already achieved this 
(https://engineering.fb.com/2017/01/17/production-engineering/legacy-support-on-ipv6-only-infra/)
 by rolling out dual-stack on their existing nodes and enabling new nodes as 
IPv6-only. I cannot think of a bigger waste of resources that have the 
possibility of being publicly used, than to allocate an additional 16 x /8 to 
RFC1918 space.

The same argument could be had about using larger than a /8 for private 
networking. Why not use IPv6?

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

From: Christian de Larrinaga 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:51 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: Denis Fondras ; nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

excuse top posting -

I don't see a case for shifting 240/4 into public IP space if it is just
going to sustain the rentier sinecures of the existing IPv4
incumbencies. In other words if RIRs don't use it boost new entrants it
will just add another knot to the stranglehold we are in vis IPv4.

I can see a potential case for shifting it from experimental to private
space given the fact that "the rest of us" without public IP space and
natted behind CGNATs have taken to use IPv4 for wireguard, containers,
zero configs and so on, to tie our various locations, services and
applications together within our own private distributed nets and expose
our services for public consumption over IPv6.


C

Christian de Larrinaga


Christian Christopher Hawker  writes

> Hi Denis,
>
> It will only be burned through if RIR communities change policies to allow 
> for larger delegations than what is
> currently in place. I believe that some level of change is possible whilst 
> limiting the exhaustion rate, e.g. allowing
> for delegations up to a maximum holding of a /22, however we shouldn't go 
> crazy (for want of a better phrase)
> and allow for delegations of a /20, /19 etc.
>
> If this was only going to give us a potential 1-3 years' worth of space, then 
> I would agree in saying that it is a waste
> of time, would take far too long to make the space usable and wouldn't be 
> worth it. However, as long as we don't
> get greedy, change the maximum allowed delegation to large delegations, and 
> every Tom/Dick/Harry applying
> for a /16 allocation then 240/4 will last us a lengthy amount of time, at 
> least a few decades.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> -
> From: NANOG  on behalf of Denis 
> Fondras via NANOG
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:10 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org 
> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
> Le Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 03:24:21PM -0800, David Conrad a écrit :
>> This doesn’t seem all that positive to me, particularly because it’s 
>> temporary
>> since the underlying problem (limited resource, unlimited demand) cannot be
>> addressed.
>>
>
> I agree with this.
> Yet I am in favor of changing the status of 240/4, just so it can get burned
> fast, we stop this endless discussion and can start to deploy IPv6 again.
>
> Denis


--
Christian de Larrinaga

Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Christian de Larrinaga via NANOG]

excuse top posting -

I don't see a case for shifting 240/4 into public IP space if it is just
going to sustain the rentier sinecures of the existing IPv4
incumbencies. In other words if RIRs don't use it boost new entrants it
will just add another knot to the stranglehold we are in vis IPv4. 

I can see a potential case for shifting it from experimental to private
space given the fact that "the rest of us" without public IP space and
natted behind CGNATs have taken to use IPv4 for wireguard, containers,
zero configs and so on, to tie our various locations, services and
applications together within our own private distributed nets and expose
our services for public consumption over IPv6.


C

Christian de Larrinaga


Christian Christopher Hawker  writes

> Hi Denis,
>
> It will only be burned through if RIR communities change policies to allow 
> for larger delegations than what is
> currently in place. I believe that some level of change is possible whilst 
> limiting the exhaustion rate, e.g. allowing
> for delegations up to a maximum holding of a /22, however we shouldn't go 
> crazy (for want of a better phrase)
> and allow for delegations of a /20, /19 etc.
>
> If this was only going to give us a potential 1-3 years' worth of space, then 
> I would agree in saying that it is a waste
> of time, would take far too long to make the space usable and wouldn't be 
> worth it. However, as long as we don't
> get greedy, change the maximum allowed delegation to large delegations, and 
> every Tom/Dick/Harry applying
> for a /16 allocation then 240/4 will last us a lengthy amount of time, at 
> least a few decades.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
> -
> From: NANOG  on behalf of Denis 
> Fondras via NANOG
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 11:10 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org 
> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 
>  
> Le Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 03:24:21PM -0800, David Conrad a écrit :
>> This doesn’t seem all that positive to me, particularly because it’s 
>> temporary
>> since the underlying problem (limited resource, unlimited demand) cannot be
>> addressed.
>> 
>
> I agree with this.
> Yet I am in favor of changing the status of 240/4, just so it can get burned
> fast, we stop this endless discussion and can start to deploy IPv6 again.
>
> Denis


-- 
Christian de Larrinaga