I agree generally with Brian except for the 2860 part. I would not want
to have seen IANA put on the spot for this, even if the IAB had been
willing to take responsibility for it.
Meanwhile I will say once again that capitulating here is wrong on many
levels. First there is the whole, "They made their non-IPv6 bed, they
ought to be required to lay down in it" issue. But completely aside from
that, I think Brian is right that the chances are within a close
approximation of 100% that whatever we do here will be ignored anyway.
So why not take a stand by doing the right thing and not allocating the
prefix?
... and a meta-issue for Ron. I saw a lot more opposition to the
document in the last call than you did. Are you by any chance referring
to my message at
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg69583.html below?
If so, I guess I needed to actually say the words, "I oppose publication
of this document?" If I wasn't clear, sorry.
Doug
On 11/28/2011 18:43, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I refrained from commenting during the IETF Last Call, and I think it might
help the IESG to reach the least bad decision if I say why.
This whole proposal will *never* be palatable to me. However, it may be
reasonable for the IETF to lay down appropriate restrictions, even though
we know that ISPs will ignore them.
IMNSHO it would have been much better if the IAB had agreed that this
allocation was a policy matter to be left to IANA and the RIRs under
Clause 4.3 of RFC 2860 . Since the IAB chose to define it as a technical
allocation, it is the IETF that has to take responsibility, and it is a
lose-lose game for us. Whatever we decide is wrong.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2011-11-29 10:25, Ronald Bonica wrote:
On October 10, 2011, the IESG issued a last call for comments regarding
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for
Shared CGN Space). While the community did not display consensus supporting
the draft, it also did not display consensus against the draft. Therefore, I
will submit the draft to the full IESG for its consideration at its December
1 teleconference. The draft will be published as a BCP if a sufficient
number of IESG members ballot "Yes" or "No Objection", and if no IESG member
ballots "Discuss".
Because the decision to submit this draft to the full IESG is controversial,
I will explain the decision making process.
The IETF has a precedent for interpreting silence as consent. Typically, if
a last call elicits no response, the draft is brought to the full IESG for
consideration. The October 10 last call regarding
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 evoked only two responses. One
response supported publication of the draft while the other was opposed to
it. The respondent voicing support for the draft offered no rationale. The
respondent objecting offered many editorial comments, but almost no
rationale for blocking the draft once the editorial comments are addressed.
Because the October 10 last call elicited so little response, and because
many community members have privately expressed strong opinions regarding
this draft, I will summarize outstanding issues below. The following are
arguments *against* draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request:
- Allocation of a special-use /10 does not hasten the deployment of IPv6. It
only extends the life of the IPv4 network.
- If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will be used as additional RFC 1918
address space, despite a specific prohibition against such use stated by the
draft.
- If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will encourage others to request
still more special-use address space.
- Some applications will break. These applications share the characteristic
of assuming that an interface is globally reachable if it is numbered by an
non-RFC 1918 address. To date, the only application that has been identified
as breaking is 6to4, but others may be identified in the future.
Arguments *supporting* draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 assume
that operators will deploy CGNs and will number the interfaces between CGN
and CPE. If the /10 proposed by draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request
is not allocated, operators will number from one of the following:
- public address space
- RFC 1918 address space
- squat space
If operators number from public address space, they will deplete an already
scarce resource. If operators number from RFC 1918 space and the same RFC
1918 space is used on the customer premise, some CPE will behave badly. The
consequences of numbering from squat space are determined by the squat space
that is chosen.
In summary, allocation of the /10 will have certain adverse effects upon the
community. However, failure to allocate the /10 will have different adverse
effects on the community. The IESG is being asked to choose the lesser of
two evils.
--
"We could put the whole Internet into a book."
"Too practical."
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf