On Dec 5, 2011 7:48 PM, "Chris Grundemann" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 15:06, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: > > By contrast, further discussion of the following topics would not help the IESG gauge consensus: > <snip> > > Agreed. The bottom line here is that if we remove ourselves from the > religious/political debate and focus on operational realities - the > choice is not a hard one. The allocation of a shared CGN space is the > best thing we can do for the Internet, it's users, it's operators, > it's vendors, and for IPv6 deployment as well (which is actually > redundant).
No it might not be a hard choice, but that dont make it a good solution, just a choice of the lesser evil. Btw: If this allocation are made from any of the free available pools, not rfc1918 or 240/4, then lets us also give out a /8 from somewhere in 240/4 and lets see if it really is so d*mn hard to use this space. That might add some value for the future.... --- Roger J ---
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
