On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Fred Baker <fred@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In my opinion, having a designated space is better than "squat" space, given that we we already know that squat space is being used. The argument that it extends the life of IPv4 is, IMHO, of limited value; yes, it allows operators to keep their IPv4 service running; given the number of CPE Routers that lack IPv6 capabilities, that will likely be necessary for the equipment lifetime of a CPE Router barring extraordinary activities on the part of vendors and operators to replace the current load of CPE Routers in favor of IPv6-capable upgrades. > > IMHO, the space should be allocated. > > On Nov 28, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: > >> On October 10, 2011, the IESG issued a last call for comments regarding draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared CGN Space). While the community did not display consensus supporting the draft, it also did not display consensus against the draft. Therefore, I will submit the draft to the full IESG for its consideration at its December 1 teleconference. The draft will be published as a BCP if a sufficient number of IESG members ballot "Yes" or "No Objection", and if no IESG member ballots "Discuss". >> >> Because the decision to submit this draft to the full IESG is controversial, I will explain the decision making process. >> >> The IETF has a precedent for interpreting silence as consent. Typically, if a last call elicits no response, the draft is brought to the full IESG for consideration. The October 10 last call regarding draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 evoked only two responses. One response supported publication of the draft while the other was opposed to it. The respondent voicing support for the draft offered no rationale. The respondent objecting offered many editorial comments, but almost no rationale for blocking the draft once the editorial comments are addressed. >> >> Because the October 10 last call elicited so little response, and because many community members have privately expressed strong opinions regarding this draft, I will summarize outstanding issues below. The following are arguments *against* draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request: >> >> - Allocation of a special-use /10 does not hasten the deployment of IPv6. It only extends the life of the IPv4 network. >> - If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will be used as additional RFC 1918 address space, despite a specific prohibition against such use stated by the draft. >> - If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will encourage others to request still more special-use address space. >> - Some applications will break. These applications share the characteristic of assuming that an interface is globally reachable if it is numbered by an non-RFC 1918 address. To date, the only application that has been identified as breaking is 6to4, but others may be identified in the future. >> >> Arguments *supporting* draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 assume that operators will deploy CGNs and will number the interfaces between CGN and CPE. If the /10 proposed by draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request is not allocated, operators will number from one of the following: >> >> - public address space >> - RFC 1918 address space >> - squat space >> >> If operators number from public address space, they will deplete an already scarce resource. If operators number from RFC 1918 space and the same RFC 1918 space is used on the customer premise, some CPE will behave badly. The consequences of numbering from squat space are determined by the squat space that is chosen. >> >> In summary, allocation of the /10 will have certain adverse effects upon the community. However, failure to allocate the /10 will have different adverse effects on the community. The IESG is being asked to choose the lesser of two evils. >> >> Given that this is not a last call but folks are weighing in anyhow, i will say i oppose this allocations. This is taking legitimate IPv4 public space from people who need it, and without SOP justification, giving it to an industry segment who has not deployed IPv6 in the 10+ years allowed to do so. IPv4 space has a market value. Making this allocation is effectively the same thing as the IETF giving these companies money to NOT deploy IPv6 and paying them to roll out CGN (feels like a farm subsidy). If there are really boxes in the ground that cannot do IPv6 (96 bits too much), then folks should spend the money to make 240/4 work. I was told the 240/4 fix was too expensive. Anyone on the black markets want to provide a spot market value of a of pristine /10 of ARIN space? I think i overheard that a /16 goes for about a million, but i dont actually know. CB ps. Just came across this HBS study on IPv4 prices and market, I have not read it yet http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/12-020.pdf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf