In message <4ED5720A(_dot_)5020401(_at_)dougbarton(_dot_)us>, Doug Barton
writes:
On 11/29/2011 15:37, Chris Grundemann wrote:
I support draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request and the
allocation of a /10 as Shared CGN Space because we are approaching
complete global exhaustion of unallocated IPv4 addresses and the value
of globally unique addresses is becoming manifest.
As others have pointed out, those ideas contradict one another. The fact
that free addresses are so valuable is precisely why they shouldn't be
taken away from new entrants to the market in order to benefit the
grasshoppers who've fiddled away the summer. And yes, I realize that
1,024 /20s is just a drop in the bucket. But sometimes the principle of
the thing IS the thing.
And if we had done this several years ago we would have left even more space
to new comers as the RIR's could have use this space in assessing requests
for additional space. ISP that use this block could collectively return
much more space to the free pool than this will consume.
Network operators recognize the need to transition to IPv6 now more than
ever.
Again, no sympathy. They've had (by conservative estimates) 10 years.
However,
the immediate necessity for IPv4 connectivity poses a near-term
challenge which requires the deployment of address-sharing
technologies.
They created the crisis. Why is it our responsibility to fix it for them?
Because they have asked for our help.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf