On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 08:44, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In Section 3: > > "A Service Provider can number the interfaces in question from > legitimately assigned globally unique address space. While this > solution poses the fewest problems, it is impractical because > globally unique IPv4 address space is in short supply." > > Unique IPv4 address space is not in short supply in some regions. If it is > globally in short supply, I gather that several regions have already reached > their IPv4 Exhaustion phase. I haven't seen any announcements about that. http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2011/final-8 http://www.coisoc.org/index.php/2011/internet-society-statement-on-apnic-ipv4-depletion/ http://www.apnic.net/community/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-exhaustion-details http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=3592 > "While the Regional Internet Registries (RIR) have enough address > space to allocate a single /10 to be shared by all Service Providers, > they do not have enough address space to make a unique assignment to > each Service Provider." > > The above is incorrect as RIRs are still providing unique IPv4 assignments > to service providers that request IPv4 addresses. On reading this draft, I > conclude that as IPv4 addresses are nearly exhausted, the only option left > is to deploy Carrier Grade NAT instead of requesting IPv4 addresses from a > RIR. Are you proposing that every ISP on the planet be given a /10 for inside CGN use, rather than one single /10 being reserved for this purpose? Cheers, ~Chris > For the determination of consensus, I do not support this proposal. > > Regards, > -sm > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf