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 22:29, Victor Kuarsingh wrote: > 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). That doesn't answer the question. For clarity, I asked the same question twice, worded a little differently the second time. Here it is again... >> What advantage is there in directing *IANA* to do it? I understand why you want to use a prefix not listed in RFC 1918. I don't understand why getting it from IANA will be any better for you than if you get it from Joe's House Of IPv4 Addresses. -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> member of technical staff, communications engineering _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops