> From: Nilsson <mansaxel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> there _is_ a cost, the cost of not being able to allocate unique
> address space when there is a more legitimate need than the proposed
> wasting of an entire /10 to please those who did not do the right
> thing.
On the contrary, denying this block is likely to _accelerate_ usage of
what space remains, thereby penalizing the 'other users' whose interests
you _claim_ to be protecting.
If an ISP can't use a shared block, they'll go ask their RIR for a block -
and given that they demonstrably have the need (lots of customers), they
will get it. Multiply than by N providers.
Again, denying this block is just an attempt to punish ISPs who aren't
doing what you want - nothing else. There is _no_ good engineering reason
to deny this request.
>> Allocate, or don't allocate. That's the only choice.
> This sounds like a bullying ultimatum.
Not intended to be; I am not a provider, and have no connection to any
provider. This is just my take on what the reality of the situation is.
> The choice is and was between "do CGN using RFC1918" and "build a
> network that takes advantage of the latest 15 years of developement
> in networking".
Don't you think any network that was going to do the second would have
already decided that? The ones who are going to do CGN are going to do CGN
- the only question is what block of address space they are going to use.
Denying them a block is not going to stop CGN.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf