Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt> (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space) to Informational RFC

[Douglas Otis <[e-mail]>]

Dual-Stack Lite, RFC6333 that makes these conversions using a single NAT 
by combining IPv6 address space with a common 192.0.0.0/29.  This 
approach does not suffer from scaling limitations other than 
constraining access points to 6 IPv4 interfaces where IPv6 provides the 
native IP protocol.   While taking a chunk out of 240/4 should not 
introduce any hardship, the intended use is for compound NAT topology 
seems aimed at retaining the provider's IPv4 infrastructure.  Such 
inferior IPv4 networks will certainly expedite demand for IPv6 access.

Any IPv4 need can be satisfied by the CPE  that conforms with RFC6333 at 
roughly the cost of the monthly service.  Does it really make since to 
endorse a strategy that attempts to produce inferior networks to delay 
an upgrade and impact many services now offered over IPv4?  This is 
likely to be significant mistake, IMHO.

-Doug