Re: [OPSAWG] [OPS-AREA] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs
Roger Jørgensen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.ietf.ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:48 AM, David Conrad <drc-/HHyZTb1IPVPm/[email protected]> wrote: <snip> > In any event, as I mentioned previously, regardless of the merit of what you're proposing, it seems a bit unlikely you'll get sufficient consensus to have the IETF direct IANA to reserve another block for non-unique addressing. This leaves folks interested in NAT444 with the options of: > > a) telling their customers with equipment that can't be upgraded to go out and get new CPE > b) having somebody go to one of the RIRs and get the space, then making that space NAT444 space for everybody (e.g., like what Microsoft did with 169.254.0.0/16) > c) each going out to their respective RIRs and obtaining sufficient address space to cover their NAT444 needs > d) everybody agreeing to choose an allocated but hopefully unused (for now and forever) on the Internet prefix, e.g., something that is known to be air-gapped. > e) getting a number of ham operators to dust off and renumber their KA9Q boxes (or whatever) into different prefixes in 44/8, perhaps via some sort of incentive if that's actually necessary > > "Choose wisely" -- Last Knight of the First Crusade Don't sound like there are any good, just bad choices to make. For those that "need" NAT444, random(a-e) and go with it. It will very likely cause problem no matter what you do. I'm so naive I belive it will be better to focus 100% on do the IPv6 change and let IPv4 die :) -- Roger Jorgensen | [email protected] | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | [email protected] _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops