On Dec 5, 2011 7:48 PM, "Chris Grundemann" <cgrundemann(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 15:06, Ronald Bonica <rbonica(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net>
wrote:
By contrast, further discussion of the following topics would not help
the IESG gauge consensus:
<snip>
Agreed. The bottom line here is that if we remove ourselves from the
religious/political debate and focus on operational realities - the
choice is not a hard one. The allocation of a shared CGN space is the
best thing we can do for the Internet, it's users, it's operators,
it's vendors, and for IPv6 deployment as well (which is actually
redundant).
No it might not be a hard choice, but that dont make it a good solution,
just a choice of the lesser evil.
Btw: If this allocation are made from any of the free available pools, not
rfc1918 or 240/4, then lets us also give out a /8 from somewhere in 240/4
and lets see if it really is so d*mn hard to use this space. That might add
some value for the future....
--- Roger J ---
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf