On Sep 24, 2011 8:36 AM, "Benson Schliesser (bschlies)"
<bschlies(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
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
Let's avoid having yet another thread where there is no consensus but the
parties continue to restate their claims over and over.
I don't see anything new in what you wrote.
Things happen fast when revenue is on the line.
Now, if you are in the business of selling ipv4 address space on the
secondary market, as folks have linked to you before on the nanog list, you
must like the idea of pushing out ipv6 deployment in favor of the broken
nat444 ipv4 ecosystem.... platitudes about ipv6 aside.
Here you claim to be "friends" with ipv4 black-marketeers
http://diswww.mit.edu/charon/nanog/139751
The ietf must stick to the guidance that ipv6 replaces ipv4, not that shady
black markets and middle boxes replace ipv4.
Now, my motivation -- I have taken the ietf guidance and have laid the
ground work for deploying ipv6 to mass consumers in the near term. The ietf
has been unequivocal that ipv6 is the path forward for years. As an ipv6
network, I am subject to Metcalfe's law... meaning, if I am the only one
doing v6 I am in bad shape, but if everyone else has been listening to the
ietf in good faith, then ipv6 will be deployed soon (as ipv4 depletes) and
Metcalfe's law is a fortuitous cycle of compound benefits for me, ipv6
networks, and ipv6 users.
And, conversely, efforts to prolong ipv4 are a direct inhibitor to my short
term and medium term benefits in deploying ipv6. The IETF prolonging IPv4
with this effort is changing the rules of the game and overturning well
known and long standing precedent, including not joining 240/4 with public
or private pools.
Governing bodies should not overturn long standing precedent and change the
rules of the game at critical times where change is required.
Cb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf