Re: [BEHAVE] [Fwd: Last Call: draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues (Additional Private IPv4 Space) to INFORMATIONAL RFC]

Philip,

I have no reason to doubt that many ISPs would like a little bit more
private space. But how does that affect the arguments that any such
space would create problems, which seems to be the point of this draft?

Regards
   Brian

On 2010-08-03 02:32, Philip Matthews wrote:
> From my discussions with a number of providers at the IETF meeting last week, they are all looking for a bit more private address space to provide them with a bit of breathing room while they transition to IPv6. Every provider that I talked to was working on IPv6 transition, but none of them could turn it on overnight. 
> - Philip
> 
> On 2010-07-26, at 17:31 , Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
>> In message <AANLkTi=65nxb_baJL=QDpFyJGuPFXNwZvnis9PZQNTRk@mail.gmail.com>, Came
>> ron Byrne writes:
>>> d.  IPv6-only networks with NAT64 / DNS64.  This option best
>>> encourages the use of IPv6 and really gets network and application
>>> designers focused on the end-game, not wallowing in some middle-state
>>> of CGN / LSN / and endless NAT444.
>> Anything for big networks will require some form of address sharing
>> between customers.  NAT64 / DS-LITE / NAT444.
>>
>> -- 
>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Behave mailing list
>> Behave@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>>
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> Behave@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave