Mailing List Archive

It seems we’re the marketplace of record.

We do have some private transactions, that is, sales that take place outside of our marketplace and therefore don’t appear on the prior-sales page. That’s generally for /16 or larger, where one or both parties want custom terms that differ from our standard Terms of Use.

It’s true that prices for /16 and larger have held steadier than smaller blocks. My guess is that there has been a lot more supply of smaller blocks than /16+, driving prices down for the smaller blocks. Supply for /16s and larger is fine, but not enormous. I don’t assume that prices will remain the same.

So, what about 240/4? The IPv4 market moves about 40 million addresses per year. A /4 is 268 million addresses, so if that supply became available (IETF telling IANA to distribute it to the RIRs, I assume) it would definitely affect the market for a long time. The RIRs would have to look at their post-exhaustion policies and figure out whether they still applied, or if pre-exhaustion policies should be used. I don’t have a strong opinion on this, and give credit to the authors of the proposal for working to identify any places where 240/4 would not work.

I still think the Internet works better when everyone uses the same protocol, so everyone should deploy IPv6. At this point, the consumer electronics and corporate IT sectors are the major holdouts. There are still ISPs and web sites that don’t have IPv6, but it’s no longer reasonable to assert that those are failures as a group, IMHO.


Lee Howard | Senior Vice President, IPv4.Global
[Inline image]

t: 646.651.1950
email: LeeHoward@HilcoStreambank.com<mailto:LeeHoward@HilcoStreambank.com>
web: www.ipv4.global<http://www.ipv4.global/>
twitter: twitter.com/ipv4g<https://twitter.com/ipv4g/>





From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+leehoward=hilcostreambank.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 10:28 AM
To: Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4

This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments.


Evidence to support Tom's statement:

https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales


-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com

________________________________
From: "Tom Beecher" <beecher@beecher.cc<mailto:beecher@beecher.cc>>
To: "Brian Knight" <ml@knight-networks.com<mailto:ml@knight-networks.com>>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 5:31:42 PM
Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
$/IPv4 address peaked in 2021, and has been declining since.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 16:05 Brian Knight via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
On 2024-02-15 13:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote:
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
>
> The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
> Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.
>
> If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
> within a month.

As others have noted, and to paraphrase a long-ago quote from this
mailing list, I'm sure all of Netflix's competitors hope Netflix does
that.

I remain hopeful that the climbing price of unique, available IPv4
addresses eventually forces migration to v6. From my armchair, only
through economics will this situation will be resolved.

> --lyndon

-Brian

It appears that Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>" Does any IPv6 enabled ISP provide PTR records for mail servers?"
>
>
>I think people will conflate doing so at ISP-scale and doing so at residential hobbiyst scale (and everything in between). One would
>expect differences in outcomes of attempting PTR records in DIA vs. broadband.

Most consumer ISPs block port 25 so rDNS would be the least of your problems trying to run a home mail server.

>"How does Google handle mail from an IPv6 server?"
>
>A few people have posted that it works for them, but unless it has changed recently, per conversations on the mailop mailing list,
>Google does not treat IPv6 and IPv4 mail the same and that causes non-null issues.

As has been widely reported, Google has recently tightened up authentication requirements so
v4 and v6 are now pretty similar.

They won't accept v6 mail that isn't authenticated with SPF or DKIM
but honestly, if you can't figure out how to publish an SPF record you
shouldn't try to run a mail server.

R's,
John

Mike, it’s true that Google used to be a lot less strict on IPv4 email than IPv6, but they want SPF and /or DKIM on everything now, so it’s mostly the same. There is less reputation data available for IPv6 and server reputation is a harder problem in IPv6, but reputation systems are becoming less relevant.

YMMV, but if your mail server is properly configured for SPF and DKIM, you shouldn’t have any difference in SMTP experience with Google for either protocol.

Owen


> On Feb 16, 2024, at 07:20, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>
> ?
> "Does any IPv6 enabled ISP provide PTR records for mail servers?"
>
> I think people will conflate doing so at ISP-scale and doing so at residential hobbiyst scale (and everything in between). One would expect differences in outcomes of attempting PTR records in DIA vs. broadband.
>
> "How does Google handle mail from an IPv6 server?"
>
> A few people have posted that it works for them, but unless it has changed recently, per conversations on the mailop mailing list, Google does not treat IPv6 and IPv4 mail the same and that causes non-null issues.
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> From: "Stephen Satchell" <list@satchell.net>
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 8:25:03 PM
> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4
>
> On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
> > The best option is what is happening right now: you can’t get new IPv4
> > addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6. The free market
> > is solving the problem right now. Another solution isn’t needed.
>
> Really? How many mail servers are up on IPv6? How many legacy mail
> clients can handle IPv6? How many MTA software packages can handle IPv6
> today "right out of the box" without specific configuration?
>
> Does any IPv6 enabled ISP provide PTR records for mail servers?
>
> How does Google handle mail from an IPv6 server?
>
> The Internet is not just the Web.
>

On 2/17/24 10:19 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> Mike, it’s true that Google used to be a lot less strict on IPv4 email
> than IPv6, but they want SPF and /or DKIM on everything now, so it’s
> mostly the same. There is less reputation data available for IPv6 and
> server reputation is a harder problem in IPv6, but reputation systems
> are becoming less relevant.

I kind of get the impression that once you get to aggregates at the
domain level like DKIM or SPF, addresses as a reputation vehicle don't
much figure into decision making. But what happens under the hood at
major mailbox providers is maddeningly opaque so who really knows? It
would be nice if MAAWG published a best practices or something like that
to outline what is actually happening in live deployments.

Mike

It appears that Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> said:
>I kind of get the impression that once you get to aggregates at the
>domain level like DKIM or SPF, addresses as a reputation vehicle don't
>much figure into decision making.

It definitely does, since there are plenty of IPs that send only
malicious mail, or that shouldn't be sending mail at all. Every large
mail system uses Spamhaus' IP lists as part of their filtering
process.

I hear that SPF is largely useless these days because most SPF records
include IP ranges for many mail providers, and a lot of those
providers do a poor job of keeping one customer from spoofing mail
from another. DKIM is still quite useful.

K. But what happens under the hood at
>major mailbox providers is maddeningly opaque so who really knows? It
>would be nice if MAAWG published a best practices or something like that
>to outline what is actually happening in live deployments.

Unfortunately, spammers can read just as well as we can so it's not
going to happen.

R's,
John

On 2/17/24 2:21 PM, John Levine wrote:
> But what happens under the hood at
>> major mailbox providers is maddeningly opaque so who really knows? It
>> would be nice if MAAWG published a best practices or something like that
>> to outline what is actually happening in live deployments.
> Unfortunately, spammers can read just as well as we can so it's not
> going to happen.

They already have the recon so they don't need any help. The rest of us
could be helped by what the current art is.

Mike