On 10/23/19 12:16 AM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
I understand the reasoning. I appreciate the need. I just do not agree with the conclusion to waste a /10 on beating a dead horse. A /24 would have been more appropriate way of moving the cost of ipv6 non-deployment to those responsible. (put in RFC timescale, 6598 is 3000+ RFCen later than the v6 specification. That is a few human-years. There are no excuses for non-compliance except cheapness.)
For better or worse, I think IPv6 deployment is one of those things that will likely be completed about the time that spam problem is resolved. It's always going to be moving forward.
I don't know if consuming 4+ million IPs for CGN support is warranted or not.
The CGN that I've had experience … working with … (let's be polite) … in my day job have all been with providers having way more than a /24 worth of clients behind it. As such, they would need to have many (virtual) CGN appliances to deal with each of the /24 private networks. Would a /16 be better? Maybe. That is 1/64 th of what's allocated now.
I personally would rather people use 100.64/10 instead of squatting on other globally routed IPs that they think they will never need to communicate with. (I've seen a bunch of people squat on DoD IP space behind CGN. I think such practice is adding insult to injury and should be avoided.
Easing the operation of CGN at scale serves no purpose except stalling necessary change. It is like installing an electric blanket to cure the chill from bed-wetting.
Much like humans can move passenter plains, even an electric blanket can /eventually/ overcome cold wet bed.
-- Grant. . . . unix || die
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
