On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 03:43, Martin Millnert <martin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This is 100% matched by an allocation of globally unique space from a > RIR, shared by whoever the interested parties are. > The IETF *need not* specify any BCP on how to improve NAT444 > "CGN"-scale alone, because such action is attached with high risk of > leading to a local maximum in a plot of the state of the Internet, > rather than towards a global maximum. > > Citing RFC6264, "An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 > Transition" warns: > Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) [CGN-REQS], also called NAT444 CGN or Large > Scale NAT, compounds IPv4 operational problems when used alone but > does nothing to encourage IPv4 to IPv6 transition. Deployment of > NAT444 CGN allows ISPs to delay the transition and therefore causes > double transition costs (once to add CGN and again to support IPv6). > > The draft as written, makes no effort to require the RFC6264 or > equivalent approaches to a IPv6 transition, to the CGN deployments it > specifies v4 address space for. All carrot, no stick. > I believe the state of the Internet would be much more reliably > improved by the RIRs each having (for the purpose of being able to serve > their own users) one /10 special allocation for this purpose, which they > can assign to multiple users upon demonstrating, under contract, they > are transitioning to IPv6 according to 6264, or equivalent. > > As written there is no effort to mitigate the risk mentioned in the > quote above, and I can't support a draft that will hurt the Internet and > neither should you. Apologies for my bluntness, but this argument is a complete misinterpretation of the facts on the ground. This draft is not about encouraging nor facilitating CGN deployments. Allocating a /10 for inside CGN addressing use _will not_ make anyone deploy CGN who would not have otherwise done so. Not allocating a /10 for inside CGN addressing use _will not_ stop anyone from deploying CGN who would have otherwise done so. In fact, neither you nor I nor the IETF can stop operators who must deploy CGN for business continuity from doing so. What we can do, is ensure that when those folks who must deploy CGN do so, that they break the Internet as little as possible. And _that_ is what this I-D seeks to accomplish. And that is why I support it, and why you should too. Cheers, ~Chris > Best, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf