On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Doug Barton <dougb(_at_)dougbarton(_dot_)us>
wrote:
On 02/12/2012 13:34, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Nilsson <mansaxel(_at_)besserwisser(_dot_)org>
> there _is_ a cost, the cost of not being able to allocate unique
> address space when there is a more legitimate need than the proposed
> wasting of an entire /10 to please those who did not do the right
> thing.
On the contrary, denying this block is likely to _accelerate_ usage of
what space remains, thereby penalizing the 'other users' whose interests
you _claim_ to be protecting.
If an ISP can't use a shared block, they'll go ask their RIR for a block -
and given that they demonstrably have the need (lots of customers), they
will get it. Multiply than by N providers.
If the RIRs do not deny these requests there is likely to be a revolt.
OTOH that may be a good thing ....
As for your other 2 options:
But it is. As I said before, the IETF has precisely two choices:
- See CGN deployed using various hacks (e.g. squatting on space)
Incredibly unlikely to happen. The ISPs are smart enough to know that
this will cause them more headaches than its worth.
- See CGN deployed using a block of space allocated for that purpose
If the IETF rightly denies this request then the ISPs are going to be
forced to use the proper option, 1918 space. Whatever customer support
costs they have to bear for the small percentage of customers that
actually manage to overlap will rightly be borne by the people who
created their own problems. Everyone wins.
+1 :-)
I did original think it was the lesser evil to support this draft, but
I have now changed my mind. Plenty of arguments from so many on so
many points that I can't really see any reason anymore to support it.
So, no I don't support this draft.
--
Roger Jorgensen |
rogerj(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no ; | roger(_at_)jorgensen(_dot_)no
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf