All,
I read a lot of emails today regarding this subject. I would like to express
my personal thought on it. I support the allocation of the /10 for this
purpose as laid out
in "draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request"
In organizations like the one I work for, we have solid IPv6
rollout plans which include the necessity to support some ongoing IPv4
connectivity beyond run out. This is related to the fact that too mach
IPv4-Only equipment remains in the network (and still on retail store selves,
selling daily just in time for Christmas demand) which cannot be feasibility
removed in a short period of time.
We have worked tirelessly with vendors to move forward, but
reality is king. IPv4 (with address sharing in some form) will need to
accompany the IPv6 deployment for a period of time, of which CGN plays a vital
role (in the form of CGN and later potential in the form of DS-Lite or the such
technologies).
To facilitate this functionality, non-RFC1918 space will need to
be used such that we can offer a working service to customers. Using a
pre-defined allocation helps us and other operators achieve a deterministic
approach without the variances of needing to find other, less legitimate space
for such purpose. The alternative to the /10 is likely squat space. Worse
yet.. Many operators choosing many pools of RIR space which in aggregate will
be
much greater then a single /10 (with no guidance as to what and how it's
used).
...Ida
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf