Folks,
On Thursday, December 1, the IESG deferred its decision regarding draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request to the December 15 telechat. The decision was deferred because:
- it is difficult. (We are choosing between the lesser of two evils.)
- a lively discussion on this mailing list has not yet converged
Several topic have become intertwined in the mailing list discussion, making it difficult to gauge community consensus. Further discussion of the following topics would help the IESG to gauge consensus:
- Is the reserved /10 required for the deployment of CGN?
- What is the effect of burning 4 million IPv4 addresses on the exhaustion of IPv4?
- Can alternative /10s be used?
By contrast, further discussion of the following topics would not help the IESG gauge consensus:
- Does the assignment of the requested /10 enable or hinder the deployment of IPv6?
- Is CGN a viable service model for IPv4?
- Can the deployment of CGN be prevented by not assigning Shared CGN address space?
- How many ISPs really want this assignment and how many don't care because they don't need it?
Further discussion of these questions is not helpful to us because we are deliberating over an address allocation, not the deployment of CGN/NAT444. Operators have already announced their intention to deploy. At least for the purposes of the current deliberation, we must assume that CGN/NAT444 will be deployed and concentrate on whether to allocate a /10 to facilitate its deployment.
Ron
Speaking as AD,
But not on behalf of the IESG
--------------------------
Ron Bonica
vcard: www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf