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

Marco,

	You are missing the point - just like most of the folks.  This is NOT to increase the size of 1918, but set aside a space to do this.  Yes, people will poach it, but they would be off the reservation.  Most users are scattered all over 1918 because we told them to, default (or example) configurations put them there, manuals instructed them on how to do it, etc.  The draft says not to do any of that.  It will be a tractable problem.

	Chris

On 11Nov2010, at 19.41, Marco Hogewoning wrote:

>> Unless I miss something, the proposal is not at all to add a 4th prefix to the 3 of RFC1918.
>> It is only that one /8 be neither in the global address space nor in the private address space of RFC 1918. 
>> Thus, ISPs can use it in place of the 10/8 they use today, and thus eliminate conflicts with some of the customer sites that use 10/8.
>> One /8 is necessary AND SUFFICIENT to do this.
> 
> 
> And won't solve a thing as within days people start using it like it's 10/8. Oh, I'm merging two companies, address conflict, know what let's use XX/8. For more examples, see the work of Geoff Huston and others on the traffic in 1/8. People weren't supposed to use that one as well.
> 
> MarcoH
> (no hats)
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area