Folks,
On Thursday, December 1, the IESG deferred its decision regarding
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request to the December 15 telechat. The
decision was deferred because:
- it is difficult. (We are choosing between the lesser of two evils.)
- a lively discussion on this mailing list has not yet converged
Several topic have become intertwined in the mailing list discussion, making it
difficult to gauge community consensus. Further discussion of the following
topics would help the IESG to gauge consensus:
- Is the reserved /10 required for the deployment of CGN?
- What is the effect of burning 4 million IPv4 addresses on the exhaustion of
IPv4?
- Can alternative /10s be used?
By contrast, further discussion of the following topics would not help the IESG
gauge consensus:
- Does the assignment of the requested /10 enable or hinder the deployment of
IPv6?
- Is CGN a viable service model for IPv4?
- Can the deployment of CGN be prevented by not assigning Shared CGN address
space?
- How many ISPs really want this assignment and how many don't care because
they don't need it?
Further discussion of these questions is not helpful to us because we are
deliberating over an address allocation, not the deployment of CGN/NAT444.
Operators have already announced their intention to deploy. At least for the
purposes of the current deliberation, we must assume that CGN/NAT444 will be
deployed and concentrate on whether to allocate a /10 to facilitate its
deployment.
Ron
Speaking as AD,
But not on behalf
of the IESG
--------------------------
Ron Bonica
vcard: www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf