SM,
At NANOG 54, ARIN reported that they are down to 5.6 /8s. If just four ISPs ask
for a /10 for CGN, we burn one of those /8s.
Is that really a good idea?
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> SM
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:45 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-
> 14.txt> (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space) to BCP
>
> At 03:03 PM 1/30/2012, The IESG wrote:
> >The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
> >consider the following document:
> >- 'IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared CGN Space'
> > <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14.txt> as a BCP
> >
> >On its December 15, 2011 telechat, the IESG reviewed version 10 of
> this
> >document and requested various changes. These changes are reflected in
> >the draft version 14 and the IESG now solicits community input on the
> >changed text only. Please send substantive comments to the
> [email protected]
> >mailing lists by 2012-02-16. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to
>
> Is that a two-weeks Last Call?
>
> Will the determination of consensus be made only on the basis of this
> Last Call?
>
> In Section 3:
>
> "A Service Provider can number the interfaces in question from
> legitimately assigned globally unique address space. While this
> solution poses the fewest problems, it is impractical because
> globally unique IPv4 address space is in short supply."
>
> Unique IPv4 address space is not in short supply in some regions. If
> it is globally in short supply, I gather that several regions have
> already reached their IPv4 Exhaustion phase. I haven't seen any
> announcements about that.
>
> "While the Regional Internet Registries (RIR) have enough address
> space to allocate a single /10 to be shared by all Service
> Providers,
> they do not have enough address space to make a unique assignment
> to
> each Service Provider."
>
> The above is incorrect as RIRs are still providing unique IPv4
> assignments to service providers that request IPv4 addresses. On
> reading this draft, I conclude that as IPv4 addresses are nearly
> exhausted, the only option left is to deploy Carrier Grade NAT
> instead of requesting IPv4 addresses from a RIR.
>
> For the determination of consensus, I do not support this proposal.
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
