On Sep 23, 2011, at 9:53 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > So if there is going to be breakage, and folks are willing to fix it over > time because the good outweighs the bad (I personally do not believe this), > then why not dedicate 240/4 for this purpose? > > The 240/4 work has been shot down multiple times ( I don't know the history > ), are we now changing the rules for the end run ? > It's hard to know for sure, but I believe there's greater risk associated with use of 240/4 than with a /10 from existing public IPv4 space. That is, I think more software would be needed to allow 240/4 to be used reliably. > For my use case, a /10 does nothing. I use tens of /8s of squat space... A > /4 would really help... or having everyone really moving vendors and networks > to ipv6....because they have to.... if this draft goes through, there is > clearly less business pressure to solve the numbering problem and there will > be new business pressure to roll out nat444 > The IPv4 numbering problem isn't going to be solved. Solving that problem is much more difficult than migrating to IPv6. It's not for lack of business pressure; it's just inherently easier to build a new network with new address space, than to add another layer of indirection to the existing IPv4 network. If we were going to tackle the IPv4 address exhaustion problem by adding another layer of indirection, we needed to get started on it about 20 years ago when there was still a considerable amount of IPv4 space left to work with. For better or worse, that's not what happened. > Furthermore, I find this draft's statements about "we are trying real hard to > deploy ipv6" as not convincing... we are 10 years in on v6, no? > > I only seriously deployed ipv6 when it was clear the business had to deploy > ipv6.... there were no other choices. > > ARIN is looking for the IETF to bless this because they know it's bad, they > know this is a step in the wrong direction.... but the IETF made me do it... > To me, it doesn't look like a step in the wrong direction. The only argument I can see against allocating this space is that it will prolong the life of IPv4 and CGN. But on balance, I think that's probably necessary, distasteful though it may be.
Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
