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

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
<[email protected]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> A nit here, but the ask is for a /10.

I've had a read of the draft. Why a /10 (or whatever length?) - where
did this come from?

Assuming you're going to use this space for "internal devices" that
aren't capable of IPv6, it seems arbitrary.

I've heard comments that many ISPs are using many instances of RFC1918
address space for this purpose. You state the goal is to avoid clashes
with RFC1918 addressing on the customer side of the CPE - why not just
use your already allocated public space, using multiple instances and
the like to re-use a smaller block to scale to the required number of
addresses between your CPE WAN interfaces and the Big Ugly NAT Box?

Basically, it seems like a /10 might be fine for a number of carriers,
but not for others - as such it seems a hack to assign it and use a
"one size fits most" approach.

As such, I don't support this.
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops