Mark Andrews writes:
In message <20120212204623(_dot_)GL27669(_at_)besserwisser(_dot_)org>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns?=
N
ilsson writes:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 08:39:03PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> 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 - engine
=
ering
is (or ought to be) all about balancing costs and benefits.
Close. The cost to these late adapters without sensible business plans
will be higher if they aren't given this allocation.
How is this a "late adapter" problem? You either have enough
addresses to give every customer a IPv4 address or you don't. If
you don't have enough addresses you are going to have to use some
sort of CGN whether that is NAT444 or AFTR or some other transition
technology which shares IPv4 addresses.
And if you restrict it to those that do IPv4 literals there isn't much
other than NAT444 and AFTR and how many cpe's support B4 at this point?
Isn't the IETF's preferred transition strategy still "dual stack"
or are you thinking that ISP's that can't get enough IPv4 address
have to go IPv6 only?
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf