I agree generally with Brian except for the 2860 part. I would not want to have seen IANA put on the spot for this, even if the IAB had been willing to take responsibility for it. Meanwhile I will say once again that capitulating here is wrong on many levels. First there is the whole, "They made their non-IPv6 bed, they ought to be required to lay down in it" issue. But completely aside from that, I think Brian is right that the chances are within a close approximation of 100% that whatever we do here will be ignored anyway. So why not take a stand by doing the right thing and not allocating the prefix? ... and a meta-issue for Ron. I saw a lot more opposition to the document in the last call than you did. Are you by any chance referring to my message at https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg69583.html below? If so, I guess I needed to actually say the words, "I oppose publication of this document?" If I wasn't clear, sorry. Doug On 11/28/2011 18:43, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I refrained from commenting during the IETF Last Call, and I think it might > help the IESG to reach the least bad decision if I say why. > > This whole proposal will *never* be palatable to me. However, it may be > reasonable for the IETF to lay down appropriate restrictions, even though > we know that ISPs will ignore them. > > IMNSHO it would have been much better if the IAB had agreed that this > allocation was a policy matter to be left to IANA and the RIRs under > Clause 4.3 of RFC 2860 . Since the IAB chose to define it as a technical > allocation, it is the IETF that has to take responsibility, and it is a > lose-lose game for us. Whatever we decide is wrong. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 2011-11-29 10:25, 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. -- "We could put the whole Internet into a book." "Too practical." Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf