Re: [v6ops] Heads up

[Joel Jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 11/9/10 2:03 PM, Ed Jankiewicz wrote:
> Cisco posted a sad/funny take on IPv4 exhaustion, including the quote
> "how ugly?  LORD OF THE FLIES UGLY!"

If it's Lord of the Flies, kill the pig and be done with it, the ship
isn't coming.

I kind of doubt it frankly, we a have business(s) to run and the fact
that we're going to run out of ipv4 addresses isn't going to stop that.
Some of the measures are nasty little stopgaps which are going to cost
us money now and again in the future when we have to pull them out.
Mostly however it's just about spending the money to insure the
continued growth of our enterprise.

Engaging in some merchantilist death spiral associated with the
remaining pool of free ip addresses or, securing resources post runnout
is not in my playbook.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYffYT2y-Iw&feature=share
> 
> we have crossed the threshold from "Nobody cares about IPv6" to "I don't
> care about anybody else, I'm saving myself"
>
> 
> 
> On 11/9/2010 1:44 PM, George, Wes E IV [NTK] wrote:
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> Fred Baker
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:30 AM
>> Subject: [v6ops] Heads up
>>
>>> Chris Liljenstolpe has a proposal that he made in ops-area today, for a
>> mechanism to >create what amounts to an >RFC 1918 prefix, but specifically
>> for use in NAT444 ISP configurations. It involves a request to the ARIN
>> board. >He will write a quick draft and post it this week, discuss this
>> Thursday in the Ops WG, and call the question in >Friday's v6ops meeting.
>> Due to the real time nature of the discussion, I'll ask folks to be aware
>> and follow it.
>>
>> I don't understand why we're writing *another* draft about this. Others have
>> mentioned the other drafts that are floating around (and being shot down),
>> but here they are:
>> http://zinfandel.levkowetz.com/html/draft-weil-opsawg-provider-address-space
>> -02
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shirasaki-isp-shared-addr-05 
>>
>> Use one of those, add any arguments that they have not already covered.
>>
>> However, I like others who have posted am very much against this idea. 
>> I have yet to see a good explanation as to why we should squander such a
>> limited resource because multiple sets of 1918 space is hard to manage, and
>> squatting on unannounced legacy space (DoD and others) so that you have a /8
>> or two to play internally with is equal parts risky and evil. It's a bad
>> situation, but this doesn't solve it.
>>
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> Ronald Bonica
>>
>>> BTW, the LISP WG is talking about asking for a prefix for a very similar
>> reason.
>>
>> And I told *them* it was a bad idea too. 
>>
>> Wes George
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops