Subject: Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request Date: Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 04:56:55PM +0000 Quoting Daryl Tanner (daryl.tanner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > I don't like CGN, but the reality is that we're stuck with it. On this > basis, it's a case of looking for the least-problematic solution. Which is v6. Propping up v4 will only let those who dragged their feet continue weeping crocodile tears while continuing to fail at their task. It has been established as broad consensus that v6 is the way forward. If industry people failed to do their part in moving towards this future, they should not be surprised at failing as businesses. > A dedicated, shared prefix (not from 1918) is the lowest risk for address > conflicts, and easiest to manage and control. It is also established practice that if you deploy non-unique address space, be it from 1918 or another special prefix, you are to pay the additional cost in managing the resulting mess. Your network. Your problem. I find it objectionable to waste even more address space on making it easier to avoid DTRT. Moral and perception play a large part here -- if the IETF says it is OK to cheat your way out of what has been the obvious upgrade/expansion/business continuity path since last millenium, what kind of message are we sending out? -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 ... My pants just went on a wild rampage through a Long Island Bowling Alley!!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf