I support draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request and the allocation of a /10 as Shared CGN Space because we are approaching complete global exhaustion of unallocated IPv4 addresses and the value of globally unique addresses is becoming manifest. Network operators recognize the need to transition to IPv6 now more than ever. However, the immediate necessity for IPv4 connectivity poses a near-term challenge which requires the deployment of address-sharing technologies. We are seeing this already in the Asia-Pacific region where APNIC has already exhausted their free pool of IPv4 and CGN is being deployed. The Shared CGN Space requested in draft-weil will facilitate service provider deployment of non-unique address plans that do not conflict with traditional Private addresses. By using this Shared CGN Space operators can roll out CGN without consuming, or squating on, global addresses. There are a litany of other benefits to using a Shared CGN Space, many of which are detailed in draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space. Draft-bdgks also contains analysis of all the alternatives to and arguments against using Shared CGN Space I have heard raised. Please see that I-D for my more verbose thoughts on this matter. Finally, the ARIN community has already come to consensus on this issue and is willing to return a /10 for this use, it's time for the IETF to do the right thing and allow people to start using this space. Humbly, ~Chris <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space-03> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 14:25, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > > -------------------------- > Ron Bonica > vcard: www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf