On 09/22/2011 11:35, Jari Arkko wrote:
It would have been even better if we had access to research that has
looked at the various impacts in a rigorous manner. E.g., what's the
likelihood of ISP - subscriber address collision in the different parts
of the current RFC 1918 space vs. what is the likelihood of application
failures with the new space. Not sure if we have time for that research
now unless it already exists.
I agree with Jari that this would be a better alternative (in addition
to Jari's other point that software which relies on being able to detect
non-RFC-1918 space having problems with this new range). I have a very
difficult time being sympathetic to the people that created the problem
by sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la la la la la la
la" while the v4 address space went away. I would much rather see them
take responsibility for fixing the problem they helped create by finding
a way to deal with it using existing resources.
This document, and
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space-03
talk about the potential pitfalls of not allocating the space, but my
reading of them didn't reveal an adequate examination of the opportunity
cost of taking 4,096 /22s out of the free pool.
Finally, I have absolutely zero sympathy for any argument that
performing such an allocation is "urgent." The coming IPv4 exhaustion
problem has been a known issue for over 15 years. Section 5.1 of bdgks
talks about the history of similar requests going back to 2004. In an
ideal world the message that "IPv6 is the solution to this problem"
would have been received at some point in the process.
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
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