Re: [v6ops] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs

Brian,

	We are doing everything that we can to signal that this is part of our transition, not instead of.  I don't know how much more clear we can be.

	Chris

On 11Nov2010, at 13.43, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> I know that some believe that purposely breaking the IPv4 service could be a way to promote IPv6.
> 
> I don't believe that, and I don't doubt the good intentions of the
> people proposing this - I've seen too much of them in v6 working groups
> for that. The problem is elsewhere: this would be a very strong message
> to ISPs that are *not* actively planning v6 support that here is a way
> to evade the issue for many more years. So we end up with a bigger
> legacy of customers stuck behind NAT444 and ISPs that have no intention
> to move forward.
> 
> I would like to be proved wrong.
> 
> Regards
>   Brian
> 
> On 2010-11-11 15:30, Rémi Després wrote:
>> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-AREA mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area

---
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here:
https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area