On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > The bottom line for this ID is that address space will be required for CGN, > and rfc1918 doesn't cut it for reasons described in the ID. This means > that the address space must come from somewhere else. The choices are: > > 1. one or more shared pools allocated by RIRs/IANA/whatever > 2. private pools, each of which come from the carriers' own address blocks
3. private pools, independently chosen by ISPs using some method from allocated space (aka squat space). > option #1 is by definition more efficient than #2. and option #1 is safer than option #3. > There is no particular reason to allocate this space on a regional basis, I'd say it would be silly to do so -- what would be the point? > Incidentally, I support this draft. One implication of draft-weil not being accepted is that it will likely accelerate IPv4 free pool exhaustion as the folks interested in draft-weil will simply go out and get blocks from their RIRs while they still can. I will admit a small part of me finds this appealing as it would end the seemingly interminable rearrangement of deck chairs on the IPv4 address policy-wonk Titanic. Regards, -drc _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
