Doug,
On Dec 4, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
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.
I am making the assumption that the folks who have proposed draft-weil are
sufficiently competent to have ruled out the trivial/obvious solutions.
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.
Err, no. Free pools of IPv4 addresses still exist. If draft-weil is rejected,
it will mean ISPs who feel the need for the space draft-weil proposes will be
forced to either request space from the RIRs or use space that has already been
allocated. Since addresses are essentially free for ISPs at the scale we're
discussing, I don't see any reason they'd run the risk of using squat space. I
also suspect is it wildly unlikely that those ISPs will resort to the existing
markets for the space unless the RIRs reject their requests (and while I
haven't looked recently, I don't think there would be policy for justification
for such a rejection). The implication here is that rejection of draft-weil
will cause _others_ to feel the impact of IPv4 exhaustion soon rather than
later, not the ISPs you feel should be punished.
Whether or not accelerating the exhaustion of IPv4 is a good thing is likely a
matter of perspective, however we need to be clear about who will be impacted.
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.
You don't agree with which part?
Regards,
-drc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf