On 12/5/11 2:13 PM, "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
--On Monday, December 05, 2011 11:54 -0800 David Conrad
On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
So a CGN deployment is a new deployment and the ISPs choosing
to do this could make sure that their customers CPE can
support class E addresses, upgrade the CPE firmware,
I think the ISPs are saying that there is a non-trivial base
of deployed non-upgradable CPE out there now.
or send them new CPE.
This assumes either (a) the ISP is responsible for the CPE
and/or (b) the ISP is willing to pay for this. I'm guessing
these assumptions aren't valid.
Right. But, unless there is CPE gear out there that is so
locked into a particular 1918 (or other) address range that it
can't use anything else internally (I haven't heard of such
equipment, but maybe it is out there), this is a much stronger
argument for a "dear customer, either renumber or upgrade your
hardware" position than for an allocation that will force that
"renumber or upgrade" position as soon as, e.g., ISPs merge or
discover a need for an extra layer or CGN.
On DOCSIS networks, there are typically two deployment scenarios:
A) subscriber plugs PC directly into the CM
B) subscriber provides a router, which connects to the CM
In both cases, the subscriber is responsible for the equipment. Many
subscribers don't know what an IP address is, and don't care. I'm trying
to imagine my parents receiving such a letter "renumber your IP address
and/or buy a new PC or router". Such a letter would probably cause anger
and confusion and an increased readiness to switch to the ISP across town
that's using squat space and doesn't require customers to call Geek Squad
or buy something else.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list