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

On 11/11/10 2:11 PM, "james woodyatt" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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?

We have found problems in deploying NAT444 with RFC1918.  The same resources
(as with many operators) can work on fixing those problems (as stated
previously) or work on IPv6. (I would like to work on IPv6).


> 
> 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