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

On Nov 11, 2010, at 22:42, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote:

> 	I'm fine with discussion of the merits (or demerits) of the draft.  I am NOT okay with folks who have not actually been involved in the discussions, or personally know the individuals impune their motives. [...]

I don't think I've impugned anyone's motives, and it's not my intention to provoke a defensive response.  My sincere apologies, if I did.  I'll redouble my efforts to maintain a collegial tone.

I'm responding to what the authors of the draft spent over half their word count spelling out in Section 2, "Motivation."  I don't believe I've implied that their motives are dishonest, but I continue to be concerned less about what the authors are saying and much more about what the authors are leaving unsaid.

As I have said before, and I continue to maintain, the authors have not been forthcoming with either A) an accounting of what systems are known, or can be discovered in the reasonable future, to be broken under NAT444 deployments by using the non-RFC1918 private address realms the draft is intended to support, or B) a discussion of what CPE implementors are expected to do in the future with the prefix reserved by IANA from this draft.

I contend that if IETF is to take this individual submission seriously, then both of those items need to be discussed in the draft.  This is important because it isn't just operators who have limited resources for IPv6 transition engineering.  CPE implementors do too, and every person-hour of labor spent on engineering, qualifying and distributing changes to CPE software to cope with the damage operators do to IPv4 service by deploying non-RFC1918 private address realms to CPE hosts and gateways is energy that could be better spent on furthering the IPv6 transition instead.


--
james woodyatt <[email protected]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering