Re: [Int-area] Expanding Assignable IPv4 Public Address Re: 202112030945.AYC

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Abe mentions "more efficient and productive use of our resources" and I think we all wish for that.

I think this WG should discuss the general question whether the minor wastage of IPv4 address space that this set of drafts addresses is an efficient and productive use of our resources. In other words, where are we with respect to conditions (1) - (5) in the WG charter (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/intarea/about/)?

Incidentally, the WG milestones look a bit OBE.

Regards
    Brian

On 04-Dec-21 12:09, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> Dear Colleagues:
> 
> 0)    I was just made aware of a current IETF Draft discussion on reducing the 127/8 netblock allocated for Local Loopback to 127/16 in order to free up mostly unused resources in that portion of the IPv4 address pool. In studying this lead, I discovered that there are at least a few similar ongoing IETF Drafts being proposed by the "IPv4 Unicast 
Extensions Project":
> 
>      A.    Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 0/8 (Version 00: 2021-11-07):
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-0-00
> 
>      B.    Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 127/8 (Version 00: 2021-11-08)
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-00
> 
>      C.    Unicast Use of the Lowest Address in an IPv4 Subnet (Version 00: 2021-10-20)
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-lowest-address-01
> 
>      D.    Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 240/4 (Version 00: 2021-10-19)
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240-01
> 
> 1)    In particular, the last Draft deals with the same netblock that our team has been reporting since 2016:
> 
>          Adaptive IPv4 Address Space (Version 00: 2016-12-14)
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space
> 
> Since we were advised several times in the past that IPv4 related topics were no longer active IETF tasks, we have been only updating our drafts 
as lab notes about our progress. Upon a quick scan, I believe that our scheme, nicknamed EzIP (Phonetic for Easy IPv4) is more concise and capable 
than, while avoiding most of the considerations expressed by,  the other drafts.
> 
> 2)    Now that the correlation have been established, may I request to include our proposal with the above discussions so that we 
can have a more efficient and productive use of our resources?
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Abe (2021-12-03 18:09 EST)
> VP Engineering
> Avinta Communications
> Milpitas CA 95035 USA
> eMail: [e-mail]
> WebSite: www.Avinta.com
> 
> 
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> 	Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
> 
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>