On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 17:00, Doug Barton <dougb(_at_)dougbarton(_dot_)us>
wrote:
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.
It is more conservative to share a common pool.
Network operators recognize the need to transition to IPv6 now more than
ever.
Again, no sympathy. They've had (by conservative estimates) 10 years.
No sympathy for "they" (basically all residential ISPs on the planet)
needed. The shared CGN space mitigates externalities that will likely
be caused by every other alternative to a shared CGN space.
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?
See above. We are not "fixing it for them." "They" will deploy CGN
with or without us. We are giving "them" a way to do it in the least
disruptive way.
Cheers,
~Chris
--
"We could put the whole Internet into a book."
"Too practical."
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
--
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.theIPv6experts.net
www.coisoc.org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf