On Sep 24, 2011 8:36 AM, "Benson Schliesser (bschlies)" <bschlies@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2011, at 20:54, "Cameron Byrne" <cb.list6@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> 240/4 would be very useful if designated unicast. We should do that, in my opinion. But it's not immediately deployable. It can't be "fixed over time" in the sense that a prefix reserved from GUA might be; that is, it can't be deployed today and fixed over time. Rather, 240/4 is only useful after the fix is deployed.
>
> For what it's worth, to my knowledge none of the co-authors of draft-weil or draft-bdgks have ever expressed any love for the architectural impact of CGN. We all agree that IPv6 is the best choice from a forward-looking perspective. But we also know that the short-term needs of some service providers are driving them to deploy CGN as NAT444.
>
> This reservation may help make it less broken. But one concerned over IPv6 deployment may take solace in the fact that, even in the best case, CGN will be worse than native IPv6 in multiple dimensions. Just because I'm putting on a bandage today, doesn't mean that I consider it a good long-term solution.
>
> Cheers,
> -Benson
>
Let's avoid having yet another thread where there is no consensus but the parties continue to restate their claims over and over.
I don't see anything new in what you wrote.
Things happen fast when revenue is on the line.
Now, if you are in the business of selling ipv4 address space on the secondary market, as folks have linked to you before on the nanog list, you must like the idea of pushing out ipv6 deployment in favor of the broken nat444 ipv4 ecosystem.... platitudes about ipv6 aside.
Here you claim to be "friends" with ipv4 black-marketeers http://diswww.mit.edu/charon/nanog/139751The ietf must stick to the guidance that ipv6 replaces ipv4, not that shady black markets and middle boxes replace ipv4.
Now, my motivation -- I have taken the ietf guidance and have laid the ground work for deploying ipv6 to mass consumers in the near term. The ietf has been unequivocal that ipv6 is the path forward for years. As an ipv6 network, I am subject to Metcalfe's law... meaning, if I am the only one doing v6 I am in bad shape, but if everyone else has been listening to the ietf in good faith, then ipv6 will be deployed soon (as ipv4 depletes) and Metcalfe's law is a fortuitous cycle of compound benefits for me, ipv6 networks, and ipv6 users.
And, conversely, efforts to prolong ipv4 are a direct inhibitor to my short term and medium term benefits in deploying ipv6. The IETF prolonging IPv4 with this effort is changing the rules of the game and overturning well known and long standing precedent, including not joining 240/4 with public or private pools.
Governing bodies should not overturn long standing precedent and change the rules of the game at critical times where change is required.
Cb
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf