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

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.

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

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).

Regards,

Victor Kuarsingh

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