Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



John,

On Dec 5, 2011, at 1:13 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> this is a much stronger argument for a "dear customer, either renumber or upgrade your
> hardware" position

I'd imagine the vast majority of the customers of ISPs who are facing this issue would react either with anger or non-comprehension if presented with such a position. If you were running such a network, would you risk it?

> 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.

I'm confused: why would an ISP merge/extra layer of CGN for the ISP to relay that position to their customers? My impression is that we're talking about ISP-side (only) . I'd think this would be handled by the ISP changing the IP address on the WAN side of the CPE via normal provisioning systems if/whern collisions occur with the merged/layered network.

Regards,
-drc

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]