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

James,

	You missed the statement - NAT444 WILL happen.  If the block is present, it will be less complex to deploy and manage - leaving more resources for other things.  If I have address conflict problems, more resources will have to be directed to those.  Not granting the block does not forstall NAT444.

	
On 11Nov2010, at 17.11, james woodyatt 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?
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-AREA mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area
> 

---
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here:
https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc

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