On Dec 5, 2011 7:48 PM, "Chris Grundemann" <cgrundemann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 15:06, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > By contrast, further discussion of the following topics would not help the IESG gauge consensus:
> <snip>
>
> Agreed. The bottom line here is that if we remove ourselves from the
> religious/political debate and focus on operational realities - the
> choice is not a hard one. The allocation of a shared CGN space is the
> best thing we can do for the Internet, it's users, it's operators,
> it's vendors, and for IPv6 deployment as well (which is actually
> redundant).
No it might not be a hard choice, but that dont make it a good solution, just a choice of the lesser evil.
Btw: If this allocation are made from any of the free available pools, not rfc1918 or 240/4, then lets us also give out a /8 from somewhere in 240/4 and lets see if it really is so d*mn hard to use this space. That might add some value for the future....
--- Roger J ---
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf