Re: Heads up

I'm confused, but that may be because of lack of information.

Ignoring for the time being the advisability of doing this, if we're talking about a new pseudo-RFC 1918 block, why is it going to a regional registry?  Presumably its use would be global.  Shouldn't it be a direct allocation by IANA as a result of IETF action?

Regards,
-drc

On Nov 8, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

>> Chris Liljenstolpe has a proposal that he made in ops-area today, for
>> a mechanism to create what amounts to an RFC 1918 prefix, but
>> specifically for use in NAT444 ISP configurations. It involves a
>> request to the ARIN board. He will write a quick draft and post it
>> this week, discuss this Thursday in the Ops WG, and call the question
>> in Friday's v6ops meeting. Due to the real time nature of the
>> discussion, I'll ask folks to be aware and follow it.
> 
> i have been fighting against this wrong-headed proposal for a couple of
> years, since they first tried it in apnic, from which we sent them to
> ietf.
> 
> it is a hack which perpetuates their kludge and does not help ipv6 one
> little bit.  
> 
> they made the current mess and this just delays the inevitable and
> they'll want some other silliness to bail them out next time.
> 
> the space will be immediately be used by others, and thus will defeat
> the alleged purpose of giving them private space with which to stitch
> together 1918 customers.
> 
> it will cement in and perpetuate the n-level ipv4 nat model.
> 
> randy
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops