On 12/4/2011 1:51 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Doug, > > On Dec 4, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >>> >> a) use normal space b) use somebody else's space c) redeploy stuff >> > d) Use 1918 space other than 192.168.[01]/24 for 90% of customers, deal >> > with one-offs for the rest. > I am making the assumption that the folks who have proposed draft-weil are sufficiently competent to have ruled out the trivial/obvious solutions. I admire your optimism. :) More seriously, the impression I've gathered from various discussions is that the 90/10 model is viable, but it's not the first choice because the 10 part involves customer service work that those interested in deploying CGN would like to avoid in order to protect their margins. I'm not sympathetic. And if that doesn't fully answer your "Which part don't you agree with?" question, I doubt that even a significant portion of ISPs are going to use routable addresses internally for CGN as the value of those addresses for their intended purpose is only going to increase, and they will still need to be able to number publicly facing things after the RIRs have exhausted their supply. Doug (not their own, anyway) -- "We could put the whole Internet into a book." "Too practical." Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf