ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2011-12-05 16:59:14
John,

On Dec 5, 2011, at 1:13 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
this is a much stronger argument for a "dear customer, either renumber or 
upgrade your
hardware" position

I'd imagine the vast majority of the customers of ISPs who are facing this 
issue would react either with anger or non-comprehension if presented with such 
a position. If you were running such a network, would you risk it?

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.

I'm confused: why would an ISP merge/extra layer of CGN for the ISP to relay 
that position to their customers? My impression is that we're talking about 
ISP-side (only) . I'd think this would be handled by the ISP changing the IP 
address on the WAN side of the CPE via normal provisioning systems if/whern 
collisions occur with the merged/layered network.

Regards,
-drc

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