--On Monday, December 05, 2011 11:54 -0800 David Conrad <drc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Bob, > > On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: >> So a CGN deployment is a new deployment and the ISPs choosing >> to do this could make sure that their customers CPE can >> support class E addresses, upgrade the CPE firmware, > > I think the ISPs are saying that there is a non-trivial base > of deployed non-upgradable CPE out there now. > >> or send them new CPE. > > This assumes either (a) the ISP is responsible for the CPE > and/or (b) the ISP is willing to pay for this. I'm guessing > these assumptions aren't valid. Right. But, unless there is CPE gear out there that is so locked into a particular 1918 (or other) address range that it can't use anything else internally (I haven't heard of such equipment, but maybe it is out there), this is a much stronger argument for a "dear customer, either renumber or upgrade your hardware" position than for an allocation that will force that "renumber or upgrade" position as soon as, e.g., ISPs merge or discover a need for an extra layer or CGN. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf