> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug Barton > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 7:00 PM > To: Chris Grundemann > Cc: IESG IESG; IETF Discussion > Subject: Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request > > On 11/29/2011 15:37, Chris Grundemann wrote: > > 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. > > As others have pointed out, those ideas contradict one another. The fact > that free addresses are so valuable is precisely why they shouldn't be > taken away from new entrants to the market in order to benefit the > grasshoppers who've fiddled away the summer. And yes, I realize that > 1,024 /20s is just a drop in the bucket. But sometimes the principle of > the thing IS the thing. Even if I agree in principle, I can't agree in practice. How does a model ISP, who has deployed IPv6 to 100% of its users, support people with home electronics, and people who want to reach IPv4-only content? > > Network operators recognize the need to transition to IPv6 now more than ever. > Again, no sympathy. They've had (by conservative estimates) 10 years. This isn't about saving network operators. draft-donley-nat444-impacts shows that CGN is not a good primary strategy; any operator with sense is deploying (or hopefully, has deployed) IPv6. What does an ISP do when it's out of IPv4 space, and new customers expect to use their game consoles? Or DVRs? Or Blu-ray players? Or web cams? Or picture frames? The IETF position might be that use of IPv4-only on consumer electronics is obsolete (see draft-intarea-ipv6-required), and that anything bought prior to IPv4 runout must be replaced. There may also be content that is IPv4-only. Smaller web sites, of course, may take a long time. Until every user has replaced their home gateways and has IPv6 access, there will certainly be p2p apps and content that are IPv4-only (not just the app, but the remote user could be IPv4-only). Of course, many of these apps break under NAT444, but many don't, and some are working around it. IPv6 would be better. > > > However, > > the immediate necessity for IPv4 connectivity poses a near-term > > challenge which requires the deployment of address-sharing > > technologies. > > They created the crisis. Why is it our responsibility to fix it for them? Who did? You vilify ISPs, but even if an ISP has deployed IPv6 to 100% of its users, replacing all of their modems and home gateways, (gateways which many ISPs didn't provide in the first place) how does it support people with home electronics, and people who want to reach IPv4-only content? You made this an argument about CGN, so I'm describing why CGN is required. Draft-weil explains why designated address space is needed for it. Lee _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf