On Sep 23, 2011 6:20 PM, "Keith Moore" <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I already made one Last Call comment, but I neglected to state unambiguously whether I supported the proposal.
>
> I do support this proposal.
>
> I think that this question needs to be viewed as a choice between two risks:
>
> 1) the risks associated with this proposal
> 2) the risks associated with reuse of RFC 1918 address space by ISPs, and/or reuse of public IPv4 address space by ISPs
>
> To me it seems clear that the risks associated with this proposal are less than the other risks. Software that assumes that IPv4 space other than RFC 1918 space is unambiguous will break in either case. But at least with this proposal, there's a well-defined and easily-understood path to fix such software to minimize the breakage.
>
> It needs to be understood that at this point, there is no path that will avoid widespread breakage of much existing IPv4-based software, including some software that is widely used. Upgrades to that software will be needed in order to continue using such software on a widespread basis.
>
> Furthermore, even with such upgrades, the reliability of IPv4-based applications can generally be expected to decrease over time. There is no path to permit IPv4-based applications to continue to be used reliably, at Internet scale, over the existing Internet infrastructure.
>
So if there is going to be breakage, and folks are willing to fix it over time because the good outweighs the bad (I personally do not believe this), then why not dedicate 240/4 for this purpose?
The 240/4 work has been shot down multiple times ( I don't know the history ), are we now changing the rules for the end run ?
For my use case, a /10 does nothing. I use tens of /8s of squat space... A /4 would really help... or having everyone really moving vendors and networks to ipv6....because they have to.... if this draft goes through, there is clearly less business pressure to solve the numbering problem and there will be new business pressure to roll out nat444
Furthermore, I find this draft's statements about "we are trying real hard to deploy ipv6" as not convincing... we are 10 years in on v6, no?
I only seriously deployed ipv6 when it was clear the business had to deploy ipv6.... there were no other choices.
ARIN is looking for the IETF to bless this because they know it's bad, they know this is a step in the wrong direction.... but the IETF made me do it....
Cb
> Keith
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf