3 ms·

Well the 240/4 block does represent around 6.7% of the total IPv4 address space (268 million addresses) and is already supported by almost every OS except Windo

Well the 240/4 block does represent around 6.7% of the total IPv4 address space (268 million addresses) and is already supported by almost every OS except Windows. That's a significant chunk of addresses that can buy some breathing room for cases where IPv4 addresses are truly necessary while greatly reducing or possibly eliminating a market for selling such addresses for a time - a positive in my view. If I had to pick one proposal I'd say that one is the most "bang for the buck" and probably the only one worth implementing. The others don't represent enough addresses to be worth doing - for the same reason trying to take addresses away from early adopters who got Class A blocks doesn't make sense: any individual block is "only" 16 million addresses so even if you could take them all back (you can't) put together they are smaller than this single /4 being proposed. The other proposals similarly represent fairly small allocations (eg /8) or are scattered among all networks (the .0 multicast address) so they won't make much of a difference. But making 268 million new addresses available? That seems worth doing!

fomine3 5y ago
Agreed. This is just a mitigation so it should mitigate correct problem. IMO it's a problem that new service operators can't get enough IPv4 addresses for cheaper. It's inequality. If 240./4 become available, ICANN should sell cheaper (or free) for relatively new service operators especially in developing world, rather than tech giants in the US.
- ev1 5y ago
  APNIC actually provide discounts if you are from a developing economy. However, in practice, I see huge amounts of abuse from this, people registering space for half the price then immediately leasing it for out of country use, etc.
p1mrx 5y ago
> while greatly reducing or possibly eliminating a market for selling such addresses for a time I would argue that this is harmful. IPv4 addresses becoming expensive is what's finally convincing the bean counters to care about IPv6 adoption. The IPv4 market has effects analogous to a carbon tax on climate change.
- franga2000 5y ago
  The difference with a tax of course is that the money goes into the pockets of traders instead of anyone who, well, does anything beneficial. A tax not only makes bad behavior expensive, but funds remediation efforts (a carbon tax usually funds renewables research, for example). Imagine how quickly we'd roll out IPv6 if IPv4 net owners had to start paying a small yearly fee which would be collected in a big fund that ISPs and other infrastructure providers could request grants from to finance their IPv6 transition.

fomine3 5y ago

Agreed. This is just a mitigation so it should mitigate correct problem. IMO it's a problem that new service operators can't get enough IPv4 addresses for cheaper. It's inequality. If 240./4 become available, ICANN should sell cheaper (or free) for relatively new service operators especially in developing world, rather than tech giants in the US.

ev1 5y ago
APNIC actually provide discounts if you are from a developing economy. However, in practice, I see huge amounts of abuse from this, people registering space for half the price then immediately leasing it for out of country use, etc.

p1mrx 5y ago

> while greatly reducing or possibly eliminating a market for selling such addresses for a time I would argue that this is harmful. IPv4 addresses becoming expensive is what's finally convincing the bean counters to care about IPv6 adoption. The IPv4 market has effects analogous to a carbon tax on climate change.

franga2000 5y ago
The difference with a tax of course is that the money goes into the pockets of traders instead of anyone who, well, does anything beneficial. A tax not only makes bad behavior expensive, but funds remediation efforts (a carbon tax usually funds renewables research, for example). Imagine how quickly we'd roll out IPv6 if IPv4 net owners had to start paying a small yearly fee which would be collected in a big fund that ISPs and other infrastructure providers could request grants from to finance their IPv6 transition.