Re: Heads up
Ronald Bonica <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.ietf.ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Folks,
I am having a strange sense of déjà vu. About two years ago, we saw another proposal to allocate a /8 for private use to support another transition mechanism. We concluded:
- that we didn't have a /8 to spare
- that a /8 wouldn't be enough, anyway
So, the proposal was abandoned. I wonder if we are not in the exact same place today.
Maybe the equation would be changed if we could make do with a /16, but it appears that a /16 wouldn't help.
Ron
<speaking as individual contributor>
BTW, the LISP WG is talking about asking for a prefix for a very similar reason.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of james woodyatt
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 11:50 PM
> To: IPv6 Operations; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Heads up
>
> On Nov 8, 2010, at 20:24 , Erik Kline wrote:
> >
> > Didn't Akira Nakagawa/KDDI present something like this a few meetings
> ago? I can't recall clearly...
>
> It was in Chicago, if I recall correctly. At which point Tony Hain
> joked that we should direct IANA to just turn over the entire remaining
> free pool for that use.
>
> Personally, I'd prefer to take Tony's suggestion as a serious proposal.
> A single /8 isn't enough, is it? For NAT444 to be a really workable
> architecture, we've got to give over enough addresses that service
> providers can handle at least a hundred million subscriber addresses in
> the same address realm, right?
>
>
> --
> james woodyatt <[email protected]>
> member of technical staff, communications engineering
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops