On Dec 3, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
- Is the reserved /10 required for the deployment of CGN?
It isn't a question of whether CGN can be deployed, it is a question of how.
As far as I can tell, lack of the a new /10 will simply mean ISPs get to make
an operational decision, the result of which will either be more rapid
exhaustion of the remaining IPv4 free pools or the use of already allocated
space with the potential collisions it entails.
- What is the effect of burning 4 million IPv4 addresses on the exhaustion of
It may reduce the likelihood that folks deploying CGN will request (and be
granted) new large blocks, thereby extending the life of the remaining free
pools by some (likely small, relatively speaking) amount. However, see below.
- Can alternative /10s be used?
Not sure what "alternative" means here. If the idea is to use space from
240/4, I suspect not since I believe part of the problem statement is the need
to deal with old, non-field upgradable CPE, the exact boxes that are likely to
have issues with trying to configure 240/4 on the WAN interface.
By contrast, further discussion of the following topics would not help the
IESG gauge consensus:
- How many ISPs really want this assignment and how many don't care because
they don't need it?
Without knowing how many ISPs would make use of draft-weil space, it is
difficult to estimate the impact on the remaining IPv4 free pools should
draft-weil space not be allocated.
Ietf mailing list