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

On 11Nov2010, at 17.29, 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).
> 
+1
> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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