I will add one more concern with this allocation. IPv4 address allocation is a market (supply exceeds demand in this case), and thus a strategic game (like chess) to gather limited resources .
We have known for a long time how IPv4 was not an acceptable long term solution. We have known for a long time that IPv6 is the only path forward for a growing internet (more people online, more devices connected, up and to the right...) This allocation is changing the rules of the game in the last few minutes (IANA and APNIC are already out...) and is dubiously blessing an Internet model based on CGN. Changing the rules of the game towards the end to manipulate the outcome is seldom acceptable, regardless of the context. AFAIK, there have been no extenuating circumstance that have dictated a need for a change. IPv4 did not magically run out. My favorite IPv4 risk artifact should be familiar to the draft authors or other people in the ARIN region: https://www.arin.net/knowledge/about_resources/ceo_letter.pdf I understand how this allocations benefits folks in the short run, and i promise to use this allocation to my benefit (better than squat space, right?!). But, at the macroscopic level at which the IETF, IESG, and IAB should be working, this is just changing the rules of the game at the last minute because some players don't like the outcome, even though this outcome (ipv4 is out, need to use v6) has had 10+ years of runway. I do not believe this is a positive sum game where this allocation is made and everyone wins. I do believe IPv6 loses (CGN vs v6 investment*, urgency, lines on strategy diagrams...) if this allocation is made, and i do not think it is acceptable to change the rules of the game in the final moments because the outcome is costly for some. Cameron *i already have the link to your press release that your lab is ipv6 enabled, thanks! _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
