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

Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca> Tue, 03 August 2010 10:08 UTC

Return-Path: <philip_matthews@magma.ca>
X-Original-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19A243A68FB for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 03:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.764
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.764 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.834, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d9hIL3T4gGZE for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 03:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-09.primus.ca (mail16.primus.ca [216.254.141.183]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE5A13A68F0 for <behave@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 03:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bas12-ottawa23-1177806217.dsl.bell.ca ([70.51.229.137] helo=[192.168.2.16]) by mail-09.primus.ca with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <philip_matthews@magma.ca>) id 1OgEQX-0003uf-07; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 06:08:53 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-22--272262377"
From: Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca>
In-Reply-To: <4C57524A.3040407@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 06:08:51 -0400
Message-Id: <39A95334-DF93-4A9A-A9D6-9D48177BB056@magma.ca>
References: <4C4DAA99.5040500@piuha.net> <AANLkTi=65nxb_baJL=QDpFyJGuPFXNwZvnis9PZQNTRk@mail.gmail.com> <201007262131.o6QLVQmk001896@drugs.dv.isc.org> <28167C07-ED66-4B13-9A27-48B73EF4943C@magma.ca> <4C57524A.3040407@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
X-Authenticated: philip_matthews - bas12-ottawa23-1177806217.dsl.bell.ca ([192.168.2.16]) [70.51.229.137]
Cc: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>, Behave WG <behave@ietf.org>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [Fwd: Last Call: draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues (Additional Private IPv4 Space) to INFORMATIONAL RFC]
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:08:27 -0000

Hmm... Perhaps I missing something, but I just re-read the draft and I didn't see that it was arguing against allocating additional space.   It pointed out some problems, but they didn't seem unsurmountable to me. The operators I talked with told me "We know there are problems, but we are willing to live with them, because we really need extra IPv4 space. We HAVE to get extra space from somewhere."
Some of the operators I talked with are those behind    http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-weil-opsawg-provider-address-space-00.txt
- Philip

On 2010-08-02, at 19:18 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> 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
>