On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 05:12:31PM -0700, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 15:13, Doug Barton <dougb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 02/10/2012 10:22, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> >> This is not about IPv4 life-support.
> >
> > Seriously?
>
> Seriously.
>
> The birth of a shared CGN space in no significant way extends the life
> of IPv4. It does provide the best possible solution to a necessary
> evil (CGN inside addresses).
We do not need another reason for people to delay v6 deployment. Just
saying "this isn't about sticking your head in the sand" does not make
it any more so. This _will_be_used_ as an excuse for not rolling out v6.
> >> This is about providing the best answer to a difficult problem.
> >
> > The best answer is to make sure that CPEs that will be doing CGN can
> > handle the same 1918 space inside the user network and at the CGN layer.
>
> Are you volunteering to buy everyone on earth a new CPE? If not, who
> do you suggest will? My bet is that no one is willing to drop the
> billions of dollars required - if they were, we could just sign
> everyone up for IPv6 capable CPE and skip the whole debate... ;)
There are more than 1 prefix in RFC1918. Tell the customers to use
another one than the one you inflict on them as bad excuse for not
doing v6 quick enough. That there will be increased support load on any
provider not giving customers public space is a suitable punishment for
above mentioned failure to deliver v6.
I still strongly oppose the publication of this draft. In any form except
a complete rewrite telling providers to use RFC1918 and be done with it.
--
Måns, sadly enough not surprised by the fact
that this bad idea still isn't properly killed.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf