Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14.txt> (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space) to BCP

[Chris Grundemann <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:15, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> To follow up on an earlier comment, the rate at which ARIN (or
> other RIRs) are running out of /10s (or /8s) is probably
> irrelevant, as are hypotheses about what ARIN staff might do
> about requests for allocation for CGN use with or without this
> policy/ block.
>
> But, since people want to talk about it in those terms, I'd be
> interested in some real data and projections.  In particular,
> how many large ISPs have expressed significant interest in this,
> where "large" is defined as "big enough that an application for
> a /10 would be taken seriously".  Now, if one /10 block is
> allocated to this use versus all of those ISPs applying for
> separate ones, how much does that change the likely date at
> which all of the currently-unallocated /8s are exhausted.

This is not about IPv4 life-support. This is about providing the best
answer to a difficult problem. Run-out date is not nearly as important
as efficient use at this point. It is not efficient for multiple ISPs
to use different space when a shared space will function optimally.

> If that difference is less than years, I, personally, don't
> think that particular argument is useful.   Other arguments may
> be, but not that one.

Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space
for a more thorough analysis of the motivations, pros, cons, and
alternatives for this shared CGN space. I think you'll find that those
other arguments are laid out there.

Cheers,
~Chris

>     john
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com