Re: [v6ops] Heads up

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Cameron Byrne
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 1:07 PM
> To: james woodyatt
> Cc: IPv6 Operations; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] [v6ops] Heads up
> 
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:50 PM, james woodyatt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> I need at least 10x /8s to number my current network, and that does not
> account for growth.
> 
> Verizon Wireless uses 40+ instances of 10.0.0.0/8
> 
> Cameron

The draft was http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr-04

This isn't specific to ISPs either, there's pain any time you're connected to multiple
address domains.  So another example would be the address space used by VPNs.
If it conflicts with the address space of the location you're in, things break.
So I had responded saying there's nothing particularly unique to ISPs here.
If you give a space to ISPs be prepared to give one for other categories as well
such as VPNs.

And if I remember correctly, ARIN had already rejected the 
draft-shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr request, so Chris Liljenstolpe
writing another draft and asking ARIN would seem to be redundant.

-Dave