> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Doug Barton > > 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. [WEG] Thank you for confirming publicly that you'd prefer to preach at/blame ambiguous entities ("the ISPs") for perceived past sins as a way to make their problem seem illegitimate. Yes, ISPs would rather not make a bad situation worse. We're already bearing costs to deploy IPv6, and eventually will be bearing the costs of deploying and supporting CGN no matter how distasteful we find it. We'd rather not add additional CGN breakage to the mix. This is primarily because we want our customers to be happy, and broken customers != happy customers. Yes, broken customers have associated support costs that we'd rather not pay, but that's secondary. What's mystifying and frustrating me is that some folks in the IETF refuse to believe us when we say that based on what *we* know about *our* networks and the CPE that *our* customers use, use of 1918 or squat space will be worse. You've made it clear that you don't think that the 90/10 problem is a large enough problem to justify a separate allocation, and it seems unlikely that anyone will convince you otherwise, apparently because this is somehow someone's fault and they should take responsibility for it. I'm not sure what else I can say here. I'd love for you to be right and it's not a problem, but I'm not willing to stake my job on it. Are you? > > 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." > [WEG] Really? Solutions to operator problems = extortion? Glad to see that discourse here has degenerated to same extent it has in politics - when all else fails, resort to hyperbole, FUD, and namecalling... And we wonder why we can't get better operator participation and representation here... Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf