Re: Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs
Rémi Després <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.ietf.ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, Ron, Le 9 nov. 2010 à 13:26, Ronald Bonica a écrit : > 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 - Allocating a /8 to ISPs, while it is still feasible, would only slightly modify the date at which IPv4 prefixes er exhausted, not a big deal. > - that a /8 wouldn't be enough, anyway - ISPs already operate several parallel instances of 10/8 clouds, so that, although a /7 would be more generous than better a /8, a new /8 is enough to replace current 10/8's by a prefix private sites don't uses internally. The known reason why ISPs have problems if they assign 10/8's is that some NAT44s: . assign 10/8's for internal use . cannot work with identical internal and external address spaces CONCLUSION: Assigning a new /8 to ISPs so that they can replace 10/8: - is easy to do - has negligible effect on the transition schedule - does solve a real problem It should, in view of this analysis above, be highly recommended by IETF I know that some believe that purposely breaking the IPv4 service could be a way to promote IPv6. IMHO, their time would be better spent working to eliminate IPv6 limitations than militating against IPv4 deserved QoS. Kind regards, RD > > 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 _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops