Re: [OPSAWG] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs
james woodyatt <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.ietf.ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Nov 10, 2010, at 21:45, STARK, BARBARA H (ATTLABS) wrote: > > 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". How will directing IANA to allocate the NAT444 block speed up IPv6 deployment? Operators that go down the NAT444 rabbit hole will have to divert a lot of resources away from IPv6 whether the [non-RFC1918] space they use is allocated by IANA or by the RIRs or by a shadowy cabal in a Chinatown tavern. The problems they'll face using private address realms with non-RFC1918 space will be the same regardless of who allocates the space. What advantage is there in directing *IANA* to do it? I don't see it. I see only the downsides, which Mr. Carpenter has already mentioned, and I see no upside. -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> member of technical staff, communications engineering _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops