Ron, On Dec 3, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: > - Is the reserved /10 required for the deployment of CGN? Obviously not. It isn't a question of whether CGN can be deployed, it is a question of how. As far as I can tell, lack of the a new /10 will simply mean ISPs get to make an operational decision, the result of which will either be more rapid exhaustion of the remaining IPv4 free pools or the use of already allocated space with the potential collisions it entails. > - What is the effect of burning 4 million IPv4 addresses on the exhaustion of IPv4? It may reduce the likelihood that folks deploying CGN will request (and be granted) new large blocks, thereby extending the life of the remaining free pools by some (likely small, relatively speaking) amount. However, see below. > - Can alternative /10s be used? Not sure what "alternative" means here. If the idea is to use space from 240/4, I suspect not since I believe part of the problem statement is the need to deal with old, non-field upgradable CPE, the exact boxes that are likely to have issues with trying to configure 240/4 on the WAN interface. > By contrast, further discussion of the following topics would not help the IESG gauge consensus: > ... > - How many ISPs really want this assignment and how many don't care because they don't need it? Without knowing how many ISPs would make use of draft-weil space, it is difficult to estimate the impact on the remaining IPv4 free pools should draft-weil space not be allocated. Regards, -drc _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf