Ron,
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?
I would say for the sanity of the sum of all CGN deployments a common
space would be most sound. It would allow operators to build common rules
on managing this CGN zone space. These rules include how information is
propagated to and from the local ISP (I.e. BGP, DNS Information etc) and
how internal security policies are built. This is important since many
ISPs will likely be using part (or all) of the RFC1918 space for other
functions which include management zones, back-office systems and the like.
Such an allocation would also help avoid any conflicts with RFC1918 space
used by customer networks. Although there may be portions of the RFC1918
space that *may * be open in each network, the space is not likely going
to be the same (different parts of the range if any) which makes it hard
to build common rules and for vendors to accommodate this if required.
Should operators need to use squat (should the space not be allocated),
this would potentially resolve the address conflict issues, but would
promote bad form as many may choose space which can potentially be used on
the Internet in the future (making life bad for customers). It would also
make building common rules/filers between ISPs difficult to impossible.
- What is the effect of burning 4 million IPv4 addresses on the
exhaustion of IPv4?
This is a question better answered by the RIR themselves. I hear much
speculation from those on the list, but I don't think anyone here can
authoritatively answer this question.
Also, the effect of the allocation should be commented on from a technical
position and not presumed market impacts (if any) since this again is
speculation. Economics of the IPv4 address markets should be left out of
the technical discussion (in my opinion).
If the IPv4 address pool is so important and we are so concerned about the
price, then one should talk to the 38 (by my count) of private companies
and defence organizations which have /8s and ask them for their space back
(I will assume this is not feasible)
- Can alternative /10s be used?
As noted, some have suggested parts of the RFC1918 space, but operators
have noted the challenges with this. 240/4 would require upgrades to some
of the vary devices (CPEs) which are of concern to us.
A part of the legacy assigned space would work. Not sure how feasible
that is. I guess if not allocated (the /10), squatting will have the same
effect (with all the chaos along with it).
Regards,
Victor K
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf