On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 08:39:03PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Doug Barton <do...@dougbarton.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.
Close. The cost to these late adapters without sensible business plans will be higher if they aren't given this allocation. Truth is, that the same problem they are facing has been dealt with in corporate networks for at least 14 years -- I do remember being the victim of a RFC1918 address plan with double NAT for private inter-company links in 1998. The problem is known, solutions exist, and these people have no place requesting a critically scarce resource just to buy themselves fewer customer support calls. Fewer customer support calls one gets by building a better network, not by crying to get community pity. > 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_. Soon, "all the time" won't be. The IANA has no way of allocating this -- they've run out. Which RIR is going to part with a /10 then? APNIC has run out. The rest of the RIRen are, IIRC, operating in sunset mode, where allocations are _very_ restricted. That is why address space should not be allocated. Because 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. And to top that off, they are too cheap to do the homework of proving their precarious situation. They just state their need and expect us to accept it and codify it in RFC format. > 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. This sounds like a bullying ultimatum. We are not there yet, the alley is wider, and U-turns are possible. The choice is and was between "do CGN using RFC1918" and "build a network that takes advantage of the latest 15 years of developement in networking". One can argue whether there is significant short-term gains for a commercial entity in doing the right thing as opposed to just cutting corners. And, I firmly believe that any SDO not in touch with reality is bordering on silly. But there is a definite difference between being a tool for the shortsighted on the one hand and crafting good solutions to technical problems on the other. -- Måns _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
