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

On 11 November 2010 14:45, STARK, BARBARA H (ATTLABS) <[email protected]> wrote:
> There seems to be some sort of weird assumption that if this block is not allocated, then ISPs won't do NAT444.
>
> FYI: Whether or not this block gets allocated, ISPs will do NAT444. The same ISPs currently planning on it will do it, anyway. The allocation of this block won't change that.
>
> However, NAT444 will have to be done with greater care, because of higher risks and support costs associated with using 10.x.x.x. Which means more resources will have to be applied to doing NAT444. And where will those resources come from? Why, from IPv6 transition, of course!
>
> IMO, not providing this IPv4 address block will actually slow down IPv6 deployments, because more resources will be required to make sure the introduction of NAT444 is done "right". Resources knowledgeable about IP networks are finite. Help desk resources are finite.
>
> Please don't kid yourselves that you have the power to prevent NAT444 from happening by denying this request. ISPs don't base their business models around IETF being sympathetic to the needs of mass market consumers. We have 10.x.x.x, and it can be made to work -- it'll just require more resources to do so. What the IETF can do, is make this aspect of the overall transition easier (and less resource intensive), so that we can get on with the business of deploying IPv6.
>
> It's unfortunate that IETF wants to slow down IPv6 deployment by forcing ISPs to put more resources on NAT444, but so be it.
> Barbara

I'm not sure this logic stands up in the light of the experiences of
those who have tried NAT444 and chosen to do something else.

For those contemplating NAT444, what's wrong with NAT464?  In theory
that middle "4" represents a single, logical administrative domain,
no?
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops