Re: [OPSAWG] Request for feedback: draft-weil-opsawg-provider-address-space-02

Victor,

On 29 Oct 2010, at 10:09, Victor Kuarsingh wrote:

> Arturo,
> 
> I do not think the draft was targeted at explicitly fixing the concerns of
> specific issues documented with using this type of address space.

	Considering the implications on the adoption of this draft as RFC I think that it should. But that is only IMHO.

> 
> Rather, it shows that this is a viable option and less impacting then other
> options.  

	I think it only shows the benefits but it does not make any comparisons. At least it is not clear for me how it has less impact than other options, may be I just missed it.

> Unfortunately, something will happen.. Operators will be forced to
> do something to expand IPv4 along side adding in IPv4.
> 
> I think the major concern is that it will either be more controlled and
> deterministic, or operators will go out (whether we like them to or not) and
> implement other options (drafts like
> draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues explain some of those
> other options).

	Hopefully it would be native IPv6.

> 
> We feel the case is that this is "better" then the alternatives such as
> "camping out on other IPv4 space", or many providers making a run at the
> IPv4 pool with individual requests for such space (which in the end will end
> up being the same thing but using potentially more addresses as pointed
> out).

	Not sure If I agree with you, but the case is that this argument is not clear in the text. Again, probably it is there and I just missed.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Victor Kuarsingh

Best wishes,
als

> 
> 
> On 28/10/10 10:43 PM, "Arturo Servin" <arturo.servin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 27 Oct 2010, at 15:54, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> 
>>> The arguments why this is a really bad idea have been made
>>> often enough, so I won't repeat them here. I think that
>>> the IETF should continue to not endorse the creation of yet
>>> more ambiguous unroutable address space.
>> 
>> Agree. I think the proposal has more cons than pros and those have been said
>> repeatedly. The new draft does not seem to address those concerns.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> -as
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSAWG mailing list
>> OPSAWG@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg