On Sep 26, 2011 6:58 AM, "George, Wes"
<wesley(_dot_)george(_at_)twcable(_dot_)com> wrote:
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Keith Moore
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:04 PM
To: Cameron Byrne
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Last Call:
<draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt> (IANA Reserved IPv4
Prefix for Shared Transition Space) to Informational RFC
Furthermore, I find this draft's statements about "we are trying real hard
to deploy ipv6" as not convincing... we are 10 years in on v6, no? I only
seriously deployed ipv6 when it was clear the business had to deploy
ipv6.... there were no other choices.
WEG] I really don’t think it’s useful to discuss penetration of “serious”
IPv6 deployment based on absolute timescale for precisely that reason –
until there’s a business reason, being visionary or leaders in the space
doesn’t convince enough money to be shaken loose for that particular budget
cycle or planning window. I think it’s more useful to look at the progress
made since IANA exhaust actually happened and since some testing showed how
bad CGN might be, signifying some idea of when this actually “got real” and
at the next 12-18 months in terms of major last-mile providers and their
rollout plans.
Agreed. The ietf is trying to help these companies have a business reason
for ipv6, not a business reason for nat444
ARIN is looking for the IETF to bless this because they know it's bad,
they know this is a step in the wrong direction.... but the IETF made me do
it...
WEG] Well, no. ARIN is looking for the IETF to allocate this because they
were told by the IAB that they couldn’t do it on their own, which sort of
removes the teeth from the policy that their membership approved. I think
that ARIN happened to be the first forum that the folks suggesting this
(very much not new) idea found enough support to move it forward. That said,
I don’t think that support for the idea is in any way specific to ARIN, it
just came up at the right place and time. I think that more and more folks
(myself included) are coming to the realization that the need is legitimate,
and we sort of need to hold our noses and do it, and focus on making it less
harmful rather than blocking it on philosophical grounds.
And the step before that is that the people who now call themselves ARIN
were told no before in the IETF directly, afaik. So it's the same people,
same logic, but now they come to the IETF with a different name, same
request, and they expext a different answer?
Cb
Wes George
________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this
E-mail and any printout.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf