Re: [OPSAWG] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs
Victor Kuarsingh <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.ietf.ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <C901CA0A.128C1%[email protected]> |
On 11/11/10 4:10 PM, "james woodyatt" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > The goal here was that in aggregate, the provides use less global space for a common use. It is more efficient for providers to share a block, then all go to the RIRs and ask for their own slice. Victor > > -- > james woodyatt <[email protected]> > member of technical staff, communications engineering > > _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops