Re: Will a single /27 get fully routed these days?

[Sander Steffann <sander () steffann nl>]

Hi Owen,

Op 26 jan. 2014, om 05:36 heeft Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> het volgende geschreven:

> On Jan 25, 2014, at 13:59 , Sander Steffann <sander () steffann nl> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > […] But, when that happens ARIN will only have the 'Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment' [1] left, 
> > > and it will use 'a minimum size allocation of /28 and a maximum size allocation of /24' for that block. The block 
> > > is meant for things like dual stacked DNS servers, NAT64 and other IPv6 deployments where a bit of IPv4 is still 
> > > necessary.
> >
> > I wonder how reachable those systems will be... Will people adjust their filters, or will most usage of this block 
> > (and thereby all new entrants in the ISP market in the ARIN region) just be doomed?
>
> That's actually may not be the best question. That block will come from within a specific prefix and I suspect that 
> ISPs and the like will adjust their filters FOR THAT PREFIX.

Same question… Will people adjust their filters, (even if only for that prefix)? All over the world? I think 'will 
adjust their filters for XYZ' is highly optimistic, but let's hope it will work, otherwise the ISPs in the ARIN region 
will have a problem. (Or maybe not: existing ISPs (for who a /2[4-8] is not a significant amount) might not mind if a 
new competitors only gets a /2[5-8] that they cannot route globally. But I really hope it doesn't come to that.)

But more important: which /10 is set aside for this? It is not listed on https://www.arin.net/knowledge/ip_blocks.html

> Consider the possibility of a policy change which allows the transfer of smaller blocks (current ARIN policy limits 
> this to /24 minimum, but ARIN policy is not immutable, we have a policy development process so that anyone who wants 
> to can start the process of changing it.)

I’m well aware of that, but I’ll stick to RIPE policies for now :-)

Cheers,
Sander