On 02/12/2012 13:34, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > 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. If the RIRs do not deny these requests there is likely to be a revolt. OTOH that may be a good thing .... As for your other 2 options: > But it is. As I said before, the IETF has precisely two choices: > > - See CGN deployed using various hacks (e.g. squatting on space) Incredibly unlikely to happen. The ISPs are smart enough to know that this will cause them more headaches than its worth. > - See CGN deployed using a block of space allocated for that purpose If the IETF rightly denies this request then the ISPs are going to be forced to use the proper option, 1918 space. Whatever customer support costs they have to bear for the small percentage of customers that actually manage to overlap will rightly be borne by the people who created their own problems. Everyone wins. Doug -- It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf