Sorry Noel but I choice to reply public to this one.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Noel Chiappa
<jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
> IPv6 is The Key!
If you think denying a CGN block will do anything at all to help IPv6,
you're very confused.
quote out of context etc... but my change of mind from supporting this
draft to not supporting has nothing todo with IPv6 at all. Nothing.
It all boils down to RFC1918 space, there are 3 huge network blocks
there and double, tripple NAT work, just as well as CGN will (it will
break plenty of application either way).
* 10.0.0.0/8 ~16mill addresses
* 172.16.0.0/12 ~1mill addresses
* 192.168.0.0/16 ~65K addresses
I can't really see what difference another /10 will make really,
especially now that we're in essence out of IPv4 addresses. We're all
much better of with some pain (address collision etc) during the
transition to IPv6 than to delay it even more.
And about your quote, yes we have to change to IPv6, there are at
currently no other options at all.
Sure there are plenty of not optimal design choice made, stupid things
(like we're wasting /64 due to EUI-64) etc etc, but that is an entire
other range of subject. Right now, we only have one real choice, move
to IPv6. Everything else is moving the pain around.
and for those that really really really want to continue to use IPv4,
well try to make 240/4 (E-class) usable... there you have an entire /4
instead of /10.
240.0.0.0/4 Reserved for Future Use [RFC1700, page 4]
I personally think that reservation should have been lifted years ago.
--
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