RE: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt

If this really would buy us even a single year then we have to do it. Two years is the difference between a train wreck and an orderly transition.

 

The question is whether we can buy any time with this change. That does not look very hopeful. But there might be opportunity.

 

I certainly don't think that we should conclude on the basis of two data points that we should just abandon the whole address space.

 

 

The point about requiring a transition plan to IPv6 might be a good one. I don't imagine that it would be very effecitve in coercing change but it could be effective in causing the hardware providers to converge on support for a viable transition strategy.

 

This is politics, we need much more than an engineering strategy dictated from on high by a group with no members and no constituency.

 

 

We need to get some real economists involved here and some real lawyers. We do have some net-savy lawyers on tap, but economists are going to be harder to find, or rather they are going to be easy to find but not so easy to find good ones who are not peddling some ideology.

 

Perhaps the folk at the LSE who designed the auction of wireless spectrum for George Brown could help?

 

What I want to know is how we establish the incentives that are necessary to create the intended outcome.

---

From: william(at)elan.net [mailto:william@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wed 08/08/2007 3:20 PM
To: Douglas Otis
Cc: Harald Alvestrand; IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt

On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Douglas Otis wrote:

> Some larger providers and private organizations who depend upon private IPv4
> addresses have complained there is no suitably large "private" IP address
> range which can assure each user within their network can obtain a unique
> private IP address.  It would seem class E could, and might already, function
> as a larger "private" IP address range.

They also need to route it locally. Guess what kind of problems they'd
run into...

BTW, even if this draft were implimented (which would require changes to
many operating systems, firewalls and local sites configs), it would just
delay ipv4 exhausting by about 2 years, not allow to avoid it. What should
be done is greater effrot to migrate to ipv6 including supporting ides
like (some are from ppml):
   1. requirying at all RIRs that new ipv4 requesters include data on
      plans to migrate to ipv6.
   2. policy in all RIRs to make it very easy for any existing ipv4
      holder to get ipv6 block with no additional fees
   3. for vendors have ipv6 on by default on new systems and have it
      complain when it can not get ipv6 address from dhcp or can not
      do ipv6 routing, etc. That would put pressure on ISPs who will
      be asked about ipv6 more and more
   4. requirements for ipv6 for renew of ISP contacts by government
      and educational institutions (also more pressure to ISPs)

--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william@xxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf