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

[Martin Millnert <[e-mail]>]

Dear Chris,

On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 08:43 -0700, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 03:43, Martin Millnert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > This is 100% matched by an allocation of globally unique space from a
> > RIR, shared by whoever the interested parties are.
> >  The IETF *need not* specify any BCP on how to improve NAT444
> > "CGN"-scale alone, because such action is attached with high risk of
> > leading to a local maximum in a plot of the state of the Internet,
> > rather than towards a global maximum.
> >
> > Citing RFC6264, "An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6
> > Transition" warns:
> >   Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) [CGN-REQS], also called NAT444 CGN or Large
> >   Scale NAT, compounds IPv4 operational problems when used alone but
> >   does nothing to encourage IPv4 to IPv6 transition.  Deployment of
> >   NAT444 CGN allows ISPs to delay the transition and therefore causes
> >   double transition costs (once to add CGN and again to support IPv6).
> >
> > The draft as written, makes no effort to require the RFC6264 or
> > equivalent approaches to a IPv6 transition, to the CGN deployments it
> > specifies v4 address space for. All carrot, no stick.
> >  I believe the state of the Internet would be much more reliably
> > improved by the RIRs each having (for the purpose of being able to serve
> > their own users) one /10 special allocation for this purpose, which they
> > can assign to multiple users upon demonstrating, under contract, they
> > are transitioning to IPv6 according to 6264, or equivalent.
> >
> > As written there is no effort to mitigate the risk mentioned in the
> > quote above, and I can't support a draft that will hurt the Internet and
> > neither should you.
> 
> Apologies for my bluntness, but this argument is a complete
> misinterpretation of the facts on the ground. 

Taking:
   This draft is not about encouraging nor facilitating CGN deployments. 
   Allocating a /10 for inside CGN addressing use _will not_ make anyone
   deploy CGN who would not have otherwise done so. Not allocating a /10
   for inside CGN addressing use _will not_ stop anyone from deploying
   CGN who would have otherwise done so. 
+
   What we can do, is ensure that when those folks who must deploy
   CGN do so, that they break the Internet as little as possible. And
   _that_ is what this I-D seeks to accomplish.

you seem to be of the opinion that improving the feasibility of CGN, by
making it suck less, will not have any impact on potential set of
networks who are deploying it, or in what way they will deploy it.

You seem to want me to believe that: 
  - there is a fixed set of networks, who are going to deploy either:
    - a sucky IPv4 network, or, 
    - a less sucky IPv4 network, 
  - it would be entirely depending on the passing of this draft, 
  - the failure of passing of this draft somehow will exclude from these
networks the possibility of obtaining non-RFC1918 space in another way,
for example as I outlined

The latter two points seem a bit far-fetched.

I'm curious how you can possibly have sufficient knowledge to make those
statements as *facts*, rather than opinions, informed as the may be (but
of limited scope -- I think it unlikely you've spoken to every network
on the planet).

   In fact, neither you nor I nor the IETF can stop operators who must 
   deploy CGN for business continuity from doing so.

I hold no such illusions.  What the IETF ought to do however, IMHO, is
to point them in a good direction. I don't see that happening in this
document.

A less-sucky IPv4-run-out access network is still a local maxima
compared to the global maxima of DS.
  Convince me that our journey to reach the global maxima will not be
negatively affected by this document, and gain my support.

Kind regards,
Martin