--On Saturday, February 11, 2012 11:00 -0200 Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10 Feb 2012, at 22:12, Chris Grundemann wrote: > >> Are you volunteering to buy everyone on earth a new CPE? If >> not, who do you suggest will? > > I suggest the ISPs, they are charging for the service, right? One additional observation about this particular line of argument. It seems to me that, to the extent to which this allocation idea is part of a legitimate IPv6 transition strategy, we should be listening carefully and with sympathy. We can still debate whether it is the best strategy, whether there are better ways to do the same thing, etc., but I hope there is no one who will argue against having strategies for moving forward other than hoping that the world ends before the last IPv4 allocation is given out by the RIRs. But, as soon as one suggests that the alternative to this space request is "volunteering to buy everyone on earth a new CPE", we aren't talking about transition strategies any more. If we assume that end system networks will eventually either be running IPv6 or that the IPv6-IPv4 transition will occur at those boundaries, then that CPE equipment will need to be replaced because most of it doesn't support IPv6. I suppose an ISP could be stupid enough to buy CPE now that supports "same address range inside and outside" but does not support IPv6, but such an ISP would be much too stupid to survive (with or without help from us). So the CPE will need to be upgraded. There are potentially interesting economic discussions about capitalization, amortization, and deployment rates, but let's not pretend that this allocation for CGN use is the alternate to replacing CPE -- unless it is really a plan for IPv4 Forever based on layers and layers of address translation (and this is where I incorporate my snarky comment about X.75 gateways by reference -- a comment, I'm pleased to report, a few people have responded to with tales of painful experiences in past lives). >... >> if they were, we could just sign >> everyone up for IPv6 capable CPE and skip the whole debate... >> ;) So, Chris, if you expect this allocation will avoid the costs of signing everyone up for IPv6-capable CPE, what is your transition plan? Or are you advocating an IPv4-forever model? If the latter, can you explain succinctly to the rest of us how you expect it to work? best, john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf