On 12/3/2011 6:41 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Dec 3, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
"We cannot use 1918 for CGN because some customers use it
internally, and they have CPEs that break if the same block is used
on both sides. Therefore, we need a new, !1918 block for our side
of the CGN."
The problem with that argument is that there is nothing to stop
customers from using the new block internally (and everyone
involved so far has recognized that they inevitably will do this).
Hmm. So you're saying a customer behind a CGN is going to
reconfigure their CPE to use this new !1918 block in contravention to
explicit statements in the specification and then complain to their
ISP when said reconfiguration conflicts with the use of the CGN the
customer is now behind?
No, I explained the likely path to enterprises using this space in a
different message. A combination of already having exhausted all/most
1918 space internally, and not being behind a CGN when the changes are
made. And no, I don't expect it to happen in the short term, my point is
that it's incredibly likely to happen down the road as the CGN nonsense
drags on.
This seems like a bit of a stretch to me. My
guess is that the number of folks who would even be aware of the new
!1918 space would be quite small and of those, the ones who would
need to reconfigure to use that space would be infinitesimal so this
argument against the new !1918 space seems a bit specious.
The larger enterprises which are likely to have exhausted the 1918 space
internally are likely to have more clued-in network folks who would be
aware of the new alternative.
Did you see the message where I pointed out that this is, in all
likelihood, a 90/10 problem?
Another possible reason 1918 space can't be used: the large scale
ISPs interested in deploying CGN have already used up all of the 1918
space, thus to deploy CGN with minimal disruption to their deployed
infrastructure, they need another block. Anything else would require
non-trivial renumbering at undoubtedly high cost.
I think to some extent you're right about this, but that reduces the
current request in essence to "We need another 1918 block," which the
IETF has already rejected, has it not?
In any event, I'm still trying to figure out the problems that would
be created if the new !1918 block were not allocated. It seems to me
that ISPs deploying CGN who are unable to use existing 1918 space
would be faced with the following options:
a) use normal space b) use somebody else's space c) redeploy stuff
d) Use 1918 space other than 192.168.[01]/24 for 90% of customers, deal
with one-offs for the rest.
Option (a) simply means accelerating IPv4 free pool exhaustion. To
me, this implies moving the date when ISPs have to pay significantly
increased costs (going rate is now about US$12/address so a /10 would
mean US$50M)
... which is another reason I'm opposed. Like you, I recognize the
monetary value of the block, and am opposed to giving a US$50M gift to
the grasshoppers who've fiddled the summer away.
[snip]
My impression is that the folks proposing draft-weil are trying to be
good net citizens and not use space inefficiently. Failure to pass
draft-weil will simply mean they'll go with option (a) or (b) -- I'd
guess the moment draft-weil is shot down, the RIRs will start getting
very large and perfectly justified address requests and the day of
complete IPv4 free pool exhaustion will jump forward.
I understand this line of argument, I just don't agree with it.
Doug
--
"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/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf