On 12/04/2011 19:10, Chris Donley wrote: > > 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. > > [CD] Really? 10% of customers having problems is a viable model? I should have inserted the word "technically" in there to make my meaning more clear. Sorry about the confusion. > Let's do the math here. Consider a 10M subscriber ISP. Your breakage > model (10%) Please note, that's a total WAG. My gut is that the actual amount of breakage will be substantially less, especially for an ISP that deals primarily with the SOHO market. > would generate at least 1 M support calls (some people > may call more than once). Let's say a support call costs $50 (I > don't know the exact cost, but I think this is close), so the cost of > supporting a 10% failure case will be close to the $50M you keep > quoting (multiply this by the number of affected ISPs). What do you > think an ISP will do if faced with this option and no Shared CGN > Space? Select an IETF-specified RFC1918 block of addresses and deal > with $50M of support costs plus 1M upset subscribers? Acquire > addresses from the RIR (or from an address broker)? Or squat on > someone else's space? Thank you for confirming publicly that the issue here is not a technical one, but rather that the ISPs would prefer not to bear the costs of dealing with the problem that they helped create. > 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. > > [CD] So you're really arguing for squat space? Certainly not. I think I've made my position on the "right" way to handle this issue perfectly clear. > I have a real problem > with that. I know people are already doing it, but I think it sets a > bad precedent and increases risk of interoperability problems across > the Internet. I believe the IETF has a vested interest in > discouraging address squatting, and should act accordingly. If it's already being done then we've got "running code," right? :) More seriously, it sounds to me like the most persuasive argument in favor of doing the new allocation boils down to simple extortion. "Give us a $50,000,000 'gift' or we'll do bad things to the intahrnetz." Doug -- [^L] 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