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

Gert,

	The risk is that many of the authors then go and suck up much more than the /10 to do the same thing, using globally unique space, when it really doesn't need to be globally unique.  It's wasteful, and the authors are trying to conserve as much as possible, while not blanking a large amount of heritage IPv4 space.  Many of us were hoping to get to DSLite, NAT464, IVI before this happened, but we are out of time, and the infrastructure (in this case CPE) isn't ready at scale in a format that most of us can consume and put into production in the remaining time.

	Chris

On 12Nov2010, at 03.15, Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:18:49PM +0800, Rémi Després wrote:
>> But you won't be hurt if some others use this new /8 prefix.
> 
> Sure.  Someone else might have a good use for a /22 that they can't
> get because the last /8 was taken away for NAT444 services.
> 
> Especially content providers will need small bits of IPv4 space to
> provide content to large masses of not-yet-IPv6 capable eyeballs.
> 
> Against this proposal.
> 
> Gert Doering
>        -- NetMaster
> -- 
> did you enable IPv6 on something today...?
> 
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> 

---
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