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

On 15/11/2010, at 9:46 PM, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote:
>> 
>> 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
> 
> Technically great, career (and customer base) limiting - unless we ALL do it.

But, is it not a fair assumption that nearly all customers with equipment that can't be upgraded already have an IPv4 address?

If someone comes to me with a Windows ME machine and asks for a new connection, then I'm not going to feel guilty in gently telling them they need a new machine. Jesting aside, if someone comes to me with new CPE that doesn't do IPv6 and asks for a new connection, then I will politely decline and point out that they need equipment that is fit for purpose.

We are running out of IPv4 addresses because of growth, because of new customers, with new equipment.

That leaves:
* customers stuck with IPv4 because the ISP can't do IPv6 in their access network and
* customers with old equipment transferring from another ISP.

NAT444 doesn't solve their looming next problem---that of being unable to access the (rapidly) increasing IPv6-only Internet, and absent working NAT46 and with no likely prospect of same, the ONLY way they will get this access is by upgrading their CPE.

Am I missing something obvious?

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops