On Sep 23, 2011, at 20:54, "Cameron Byrne"
<cb(_dot_)list6(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
So if there is going to be breakage, and folks are willing to fix it over
time because the good outweighs the bad (I personally do not believe this),
then why not dedicate 240/4 for this purpose?
240/4 would be very useful if designated unicast. We should do that, in my
opinion. But it's not immediately deployable. It can't be "fixed over time" in
the sense that a prefix reserved from GUA might be; that is, it can't be
deployed today and fixed over time. Rather, 240/4 is only useful after the fix
is deployed.
For what it's worth, to my knowledge none of the co-authors of draft-weil or
draft-bdgks have ever expressed any love for the architectural impact of CGN.
We all agree that IPv6 is the best choice from a forward-looking perspective.
But we also know that the short-term needs of some service providers are
driving them to deploy CGN as NAT444.
This reservation may help make it less broken. But one concerned over IPv6
deployment may take solace in the fact that, even in the best case, CGN will be
worse than native IPv6 in multiple dimensions. Just because I'm putting on a
bandage today, doesn't mean that I consider it a good long-term solution.
Cheers,
-Benson
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf