From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x433.google.com (mail-wr1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::433]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E2683B2A4 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 16:18:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x433.google.com with SMTP id g12so15558980wrs.10 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 13:18:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ZvhvoM1g3tOTpBRQVHNI3LHM3dXl7o/3Sw+jRpDNSMM=; b=NyS4yuGHMQdZCFyulhkelg93CFFJvnEhyHvn4iZwS6FXCo2gJmK+vhHRefWTKU2xUy xTDMazWGk75h/lwTepMLPohTmKy/bQ/75Va4t79gqFArGuERJswX04qFUIeF75mO4MJU XLzzlH2yYQ5wroSsNmHklWWvUP6gUPH15OjTv3WUk+5TqrqNZzGLyC30KcVZaKwwWyDl 8VWgk1pZ28c05bOKyWMjsBBI0Rs0O0z33TlhAT5Gf7ghVZalJmtZMZra4GqU7SAv35cs Z4vgaE7zV9zUkMF0hjOR0y/81bSkzaSKLVkdYKOmd8tvJFbIj1yO7oFClBoBgDFBS8J0 sm6g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=ZvhvoM1g3tOTpBRQVHNI3LHM3dXl7o/3Sw+jRpDNSMM=; b=tEyjP24blwplZMmNfcwm6RrucQ+dpgPBXm7DrNvXHyMaCt0i5YkshHMCBF7mljogz/ w3V/lNjHe6b7XVpY+hUxeOaIb0cAoypxWdHEE+5XX+o+oO+DVn0jLbqFrHmnSfLi/MQJ p04GlXeiv23ehqxIdl8lc/uFh3HtEiDEYMzmN5K7R5Pnjo2y5wmj4PtXLCbjpbSKq8AU oWD0RRMzLPX6Xupl6jaMndM+RQNhmC5JLZ9yGRr7ncjaSk7FLd0qBOPwrRd4p6qfoqgz LRgStCHnCsjI6Lom+1RXY60OgaM1NESxel93cVC7PTRn9NvrxLkETmV8zKP4W4LbTW78 wZgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3iU5i0CNlyf4sw7i3PXbaraCtxIMTFNB30lDWbntVV06gLehDt Fifo2yljGfpkKwV627wRWDqGP1Jo0CpCfwIKUHGPNRbcbRw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7IQdygPh58KotGyS06pi8CrXdYw1dPIvPUCE8R6aprefsTgWbXz2hz4o4286A9Z15r4bHKHOjTuzHLm4u/oPU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:3cf:b0:231:6ed6:e978 with SMTP id b15-20020a05600003cf00b002316ed6e978mr29404486wrg.500.1666815495060; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 13:18:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Dave Taht Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 13:18:03 -0700 Message-ID: To: Herbert Wolverson Cc: libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [LibreQoS] how are you doing on ipv4 address supply? X-BeenThere: libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Many ISPs need the kinds of quality shaping cake can do List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 20:18:16 -0000 On the ipv4 address supply issue, ardc funded itself by selling off part of their 44/8 block. The US government has 14, at least 2 of which I'm pretty sure they aren't using. There was a rider in some bill in 2019 that asked the DoD to sell off what blocks they weren't using, that didn't get past the senate. I was thinking of politicing as part of a BEAD2 to have a bill that asked those agencies to sell them off on the open market, and also create incentives for those holding onto big blocks they aren't using (cough, apple), to finally put them up as well. I had thought that once the asking price cracked 50 bucks an IP we'd see more big blocks appear on the market but so far, no luck. 100 bucks? Don't know... I've also taken a lot of heat, over the last 6 years, for the other ideas in the IPv4 Unicast extensions project. Back then John Gilmore convinced me that 240/4 was almost entirely usable as most of the needed patches had landed in 2008 and it turned out he was correct - I spent a couple weekends making sure it worked right in linux and BSD, got those packages up stream, and also fixed up the major routing protocols, scanned all the open source code in the world for where 240/4 was specifically blocked (it isn't in any of the dpdk or iot stacks). Along the way, I also made 0/8 work in linux. To say that our proposals to finally make those generally usable over, say, the next 10 years, was met with enthusiasm by the powers-that-be, would be lying. Oh, man, in particular our proposal to make 127/8 virtual-host-wide ip address space to solve some horrible problems k8 introduced generated more flamage than I care to think about - but that made the idea of 240/4 seem almost like a no-brainer to more people, so there's that. https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240-03.html Recently did a study showing how far 240/4 usually got within an ISP via the atlas probes before it hit a bogon file.