ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

2011-12-05 15:13:53


--On Monday, December 05, 2011 11:54 -0800 David Conrad
<drc(_at_)virtualized(_dot_)org> wrote:

Bob,

On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
So a CGN deployment is a new deployment and the ISPs choosing
to do this could make sure that their customers CPE can
support class E addresses, upgrade the CPE firmware,

I think the ISPs are saying that there is a non-trivial base
of deployed non-upgradable CPE out there now.

or send them new CPE.  

This assumes either (a) the ISP is responsible for the CPE
and/or (b) the ISP is willing to pay for this.  I'm guessing
these assumptions aren't valid.  

Right.  But, unless there is CPE gear out there that is so
locked into a particular 1918 (or other) address range that it
can't use anything else internally (I haven't heard of such
equipment, but maybe it is out there), this is a much stronger
argument for a "dear customer, either renumber or upgrade your
hardware" position than for an allocation that will force that
"renumber or upgrade" position as soon as, e.g., ISPs merge or
discover a need for an extra layer or CGN.

   john





_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>