> From: Doug Barton <dougb(_at_)dougbarton(_dot_)us>
> We already have a way to make collisions "very unlikely," don't use
> either of 192.168.[01].
I gather that that's not desirable, because otherwise people wouldn't be
asking for another block. Of course it could probably be made to work
somehow - with enough thrust, etc, etc. But that's not the point - engineering
is (or ought to be) all about balancing costs and benefits.
If the people involved were asking for something incredibly
painful/expensive in order to make their lives easier, the answer would
rightly be 'no'. The cost would far outweigh the benefit. But they're not.
All they're asking for is a modest chunk of address space, and the cost of
doing that is not significant - we allocate chunks of space _all the time_.
>> This is only about allocating a chunk of address space.
> I wish that were true. :)
But it is. As I said before, the IETF has precisely two choices:
- See CGN deployed using various hacks (e.g. squatting on space)
- See CGN deployed using a block of space allocated for that purpose
Allocate, or don't allocate. That's the only choice.
> It makes their job infinitely easier if they can be given a /10
> that, at least in the short term, they can be close to 100% certain
> will not be used inside a customer network. That way they don't have
> to think hard about their network design (and don't have to take as
> many customer service calls)
So, I gather that given the choice above, your choice would be 'I prefer
the ugly solution' - because you want to make their life as miserable as
you can, to punish them for the high crime of deigning to defy your sense
of what's best for the network.
Talk about "a very irresponsible way for an SDO to conduct themselves", to use
your own very apt phrase.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf