The same thought occurred to me. A very large enterprise will not utilize this /10 on a whim; they'd talk to their ISP first. A consumer is unlikely to modify the settings of their home router, except if they download malware that does it for them :) and a consumer router vendor has such a low margin that the last thing they want is to utilize this forbidden /10, generating thousands of tech support calls they can't afford to answer.
On Dec 3, 2011, at 20:54, "Henning Schulzrinne" <h...@cs.columbia.edu> wrote: > Almost all residential customers will use a standard home router; as long as > that home router does not make the new space available to customers, it will > not be used. Almost all residential users get their home NAT box either from > the ISP (who obviously won't ship such a box) or from one of a handful of > retail consumer equipment vendors, who won't suddenly switch from RFC 1918 > addresses, either (because they don't want to get the support calls). > > I don't think your consumer ISP will have much sympathy if you call them up > and tell them that you decided to use 128.59.x.x internally, reconfigured the > gateway and can no longer get to Columbia University. > > This is an economics issue: If one big corporate customer with a too-creative > sysadmin calls up after "finding" this new address space, this can be dealt > with. (Indeed, that large corporate customer probably has non-1918 > outward-facing addresses to begin with and will keep them, so they are the > least likely target of CGNs.) If 10,000 consumer customers call up because > their Intertubes aren't working, the ISP has a problem. > > Thus, I'm having a hard time believing in the theory that the new space will > be immediately appropriated for consumer ISPs. By whom, exactly, and on what > scale and with what motivation? > > Henning > > On Dec 3, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >>> From: Doug Barton <do...@dougbarton.us> >> >>> This argument has been raised before, but IMO the value is exactly >>> zero. The fact that you have a finger to wag at someone doesn't make >>> the costs of dealing with the conflict any smaller. >> >> Perhaps. But I don't know the ISPs' business as well as they do. So I'd like >> to hear their views on this point. (They may well have considered this point >> before deciding to ask for CGN space, and decided the space was still enough >> use to be worth it.) >> >> Noel >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
