On Feb 10, 2012 4:25 PM, "Måns Nilsson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 05:12:31PM -0700, Chris Grundemann wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 15:13, Doug Barton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 02/10/2012 10:22, Chris Grundemann wrote: > > >> This is not about IPv4 life-support. > > > > > > Seriously? > > > > Seriously. > > > > The birth of a shared CGN space in no significant way extends the life > > of IPv4. It does provide the best possible solution to a necessary > > evil (CGN inside addresses). > > We do not need another reason for people to delay v6 deployment. Just > saying "this isn't about sticking your head in the sand" does not make > it any more so. This _will_be_used_ as an excuse for not rolling out v6. >
+1. This is all business. Companies have made their choices. > > >> This is about providing the best answer to a difficult problem. > > > > > > The best answer is to make sure that CPEs that will be doing CGN can > > > handle the same 1918 space inside the user network and at the CGN layer. > > > > Are you volunteering to buy everyone on earth a new CPE? If not, who > > do you suggest will? My bet is that no one is willing to drop the > > billions of dollars required - if they were, we could just sign > > everyone up for IPv6 capable CPE and skip the whole debate... ;) > > There are more than 1 prefix in RFC1918. Tell the customers to use > another one than the one you inflict on them as bad excuse for not > doing v6 quick enough. That there will be increased support load on any > provider not giving customers public space is a suitable punishment for > above mentioned failure to deliver v6. > > I still strongly oppose the publication of this draft. In any form except > a complete rewrite telling providers to use RFC1918 and be done with it. > This is the logical path for the cgn minded. They need to deal with the challenge of renumbering users. I also oppose this draft. Cb > -- > Måns, sadly enough not surprised by the fact > that this bad idea still isn't properly killed. > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
