Not moving 240/4 into publicly-allocatable space just because a few select organisations are squatting on and using it as RFC1918 space (even though it's marked as Future Use) completely goes against the bottom-up approach of policy development. Big tech can't dictate what we do with IP space just to appease their shareholders.

We all know Bezos got enough dollars (and IP addresses) in his pocket. He don't need any more.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

From: Nnagain <nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of Mikael Abrahamsson via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 1:19 AM
To: Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Subject: Re: [NNagain] ip address exhaustion podcast
 
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote:

> renting the allocations they own to their customers. (The 240/4 "for
> future use" problem is a relative distraction, honestly! but amazon's
> use of it *all* does irk me, as I had intended that space be used for
> all of humanity). Certainly by finally charging for their IPV4

The fact that it's now used internally in places, is yet another reason it
will never show up in the global routing table.

Turning 240/4 into something usable on the wider Internet is a futile
fight. It's however good for internal use as IPv4 already often needs
translation boxes to talk to the global Internet (DFZ). So the work
already done on making end systems able to use 240/4 is fine, but it also
meant it's now used for internal things. So the fight should be to make it
into proper RFC1918 style addresses for internal use so everybody agrees
what's going on.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain