Tony,
[ Posting this to the main ietf list as well as to you directly in case
you don't see it there. I realize this may be a controversial topic
that results in an endless thread of heated arguments, but I'll take
my chances since I'm curious to hear reasons for or against the draft. ]
I must have missed it the first time it came around last year, but I
just saw your draft. I didn't find much discussion on the -00 version
so I hope this is the best place to discuss it. Can you clarify some
things for me? You say this:
A number of organizations have expanded their autonomous private
networks to the point of exhausting the address space identified in
RFC 1918, in addition to the publicly routed space that has been
assigned to them.
Are there public pointers to discussion about the requirement for new
private IPv4 space? I'd be particularly interested in specific
organizations that are having this problem if they have been willing
to come forward publicly. I'd also be interested to hear what about
policies for acquiring space from the registries has been unreasonable.
Is it cost, address usage justification, both or something else?
Your first example mentions /21 netblocks being allocated to each of
5000 sites. Sounds like there is probably a lot going to waste, but
I'm not that interested in criticizing the specific addressing plan of
the organization. I know how much of pain it is to try to maximally
utilize address space. I am curious if the scale of this addressing
scenario is unique to the draft's example or if it is happening at a
"number of organizations" as seems to be implied.
I guess one point of this is, if it's relatively uncommon except for
a small number of the very largest of organizations in the world, it
would seem to make more sense to exhaust all attempts at obtaining
public address space. Especially since if the organization does move
to IPv6, or simply just goes away, it's allocated address space can be
more easily reclaimed and redeployed than private address space could
be.
Finally, I'm also wondering if there is anything political driving this
solution that has not yet been put into the draft. For example, I can
imagine some well funded, large organization not wanting to have their
name on a specific public /8. You don't have to say you, just wink
blink twice for yes, once for no. :-)
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf