[arin-ppml] Use of "reserved" address space.

[Owen DeLong]

> 
>> /4 is a honking lot of private address space that would benefit few.
> 
> We'll see. This depends on the degree to which ISPs implement IPv4
> carrier NATs which, at this point, is on everyone's long-range radar.
> 
Not everyone's. I know of at least one ISP that has no intention of implementing
any form of LSN.
> 
> What isn't debatable is that we're approaching a dire shortage and
> right now 240/4 is a honking lot of address space that benefits
> exactly _nobody_.
> 
But pulling resources off of IPv6 deployment to make this address space
workable, even in the scenarios you suggest simply doesn't make sense.
Taking resources away from a solution in order to propel a hack that will
by all accounts take nearly as long as the solution in order to develop
and deploy, especially when the solution already has momentum and
is accelerating simply doesn't make sense to me.

It seems sort of like deciding to pull the experts off the efforts to cap the
well in the Gulf of Mexico in favor of having them build oil containment
booms, since we don't have nearly enough of those.
> 
> 
>> Better to focus on v6 transition.
> 
> Myopic. Unless another credible solution presents, IPv4 carrier NATs
> -ARE- the v6 transition.
> 
IPv4 carrier NATs are the temporary hack to get around the incomplete
nature of the transition at runout. The transition is to native dual stack or
native IPv6.

Owen