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

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:45 PM, 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.
>

Agreed.  When you built yourself into a corner, you are in a corner.


> 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!
>

Umm, yes the pain is a stick for the internet collectively not having
the gumption to have this serious transition action 5 years ago ( i
was not rolling out v6 5 years ago).... to the early actors go the
spoils (carrots),  If the economic incentives are not there, nothing
will happen.  This is all that we have learned from the last 10 years
of IPv6 non-deployment.

And, your assumption that NAT444 resources take from IPv6 resources
sounds a little off.

Business cases i have seen show current state (overlapping addresses,
bogons, ..,.) and then future state (ipv6, long sandy beaches, ...)
and talk how we can invest X to get to future state which, while
spending money now, but will save us a ton later on (thank you NPV
calculator) and insulate us from business continuity issues.

Your scenario, as i understand it, is that we have current state,
current state is a death spiral, doom and gloom forever until
bankruptcy.  Unless, we take valid IPv4 addresses and give them to
your middle box.


> 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.

Wow.

> Barbara
>
>
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops