Tony, [ Posting this to the main ietf list as well as to you directly in case you don't see it there. I realize this may be a controversial topic that results in an endless thread of heated arguments, but I'll take my chances since I'm curious to hear reasons for or against the draft. ] I must have missed it the first time it came around last year, but I just saw your draft. I didn't find much discussion on the -00 version so I hope this is the best place to discuss it. Can you clarify some things for me? You say this: A number of organizations have expanded their autonomous private networks to the point of exhausting the address space identified in RFC 1918, in addition to the publicly routed space that has been assigned to them. Are there public pointers to discussion about the requirement for new private IPv4 space? I'd be particularly interested in specific organizations that are having this problem if they have been willing to come forward publicly. I'd also be interested to hear what about policies for acquiring space from the registries has been unreasonable. Is it cost, address usage justification, both or something else? Your first example mentions /21 netblocks being allocated to each of 5000 sites. Sounds like there is probably a lot going to waste, but I'm not that interested in criticizing the specific addressing plan of the organization. I know how much of pain it is to try to maximally utilize address space. I am curious if the scale of this addressing scenario is unique to the draft's example or if it is happening at a "number of organizations" as seems to be implied. I guess one point of this is, if it's relatively uncommon except for a small number of the very largest of organizations in the world, it would seem to make more sense to exhaust all attempts at obtaining public address space. Especially since if the organization does move to IPv6, or simply just goes away, it's allocated address space can be more easily reclaimed and redeployed than private address space could be. Finally, I'm also wondering if there is anything political driving this solution that has not yet been put into the draft. For example, I can imagine some well funded, large organization not wanting to have their name on a specific public /8. You don't have to say you, just wink blink twice for yes, once for no. :-) John _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf