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

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
<[email protected]> wrote:
> It's not being used for internal devices, please re-read the draft.  It is
> to enable NAT444 to allow the delivery of IPv4 services, after run-out,
> using NAT444, to act as the v4 substrate between a CPE supporting 1918 to
> the customer, and the public internet.

I may have put that badly (Friday afternoon and all) in my original
reply - that's exactly what I meant. It seems (as has now been
commented on by a few) that a /10 seems like an awful mightly lot of
addresses to do this, considering this space would exist 'betwen' the
CPE and the CGN (I hate that term).

Can you speak as to where the decision was made for the 2^22 address
requirement & reasons why this couldn't be done with multiple
VRF-style instances of existing public IP address space?