On 12/04/2011 19:10, Chris Donley wrote:
More seriously, the impression I've gathered from various discussions
is that the 90/10 model is viable, but it's not the first choice
because the 10 part involves customer service work that those
interested in deploying CGN would like to avoid in order to protect
their margins. I'm not sympathetic.
[CD] Really? 10% of customers having problems is a viable model?
I should have inserted the word "technically" in there to make my
meaning more clear. Sorry about the confusion.
Let's do the math here. Consider a 10M subscriber ISP. Your breakage
model (10%)
Please note, that's a total WAG. My gut is that the actual amount of
breakage will be substantially less, especially for an ISP that deals
primarily with the SOHO market.
would generate at least 1 M support calls (some people
may call more than once). Let's say a support call costs $50 (I
don't know the exact cost, but I think this is close), so the cost of
supporting a 10% failure case will be close to the $50M you keep
quoting (multiply this by the number of affected ISPs). What do you
think an ISP will do if faced with this option and no Shared CGN
Space? Select an IETF-specified RFC1918 block of addresses and deal
with $50M of support costs plus 1M upset subscribers? Acquire
addresses from the RIR (or from an address broker)? Or squat on
someone else's space?
Thank you for confirming publicly that the issue here is not a technical
one, but rather that the ISPs would prefer not to bear the costs of
dealing with the problem that they helped create.
And if that doesn't fully answer your "Which part don't you agree
with?" question, I doubt that even a significant portion of ISPs are
going to use routable addresses internally for CGN as the value of
those addresses for their intended purpose is only going to increase,
and they will still need to be able to number publicly facing things
after the RIRs have exhausted their supply.
[CD] So you're really arguing for squat space?
Certainly not. I think I've made my position on the "right" way to
handle this issue perfectly clear.
I have a real problem
with that. I know people are already doing it, but I think it sets a
bad precedent and increases risk of interoperability problems across
the Internet. I believe the IETF has a vested interest in
discouraging address squatting, and should act accordingly.
If it's already being done then we've got "running code," right? :)
More seriously, it sounds to me like the most persuasive argument in
favor of doing the new allocation boils down to simple extortion. "Give
us a $50,000,000 'gift' or we'll do bad things to the intahrnetz."
Doug
--
[^L]
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