[arin-ppml] [Fwd: Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension]

[Owen DeLong]

Huh?

I'm not pretending that there aren't CPE NATs. If anything, yours is the position that
fails to recognize the meaning and result of CPE NATs.

If you're talking about the fact that these exist in the VZW world, yes, I'm aware of that,
but, each of those units was:

	1.	Preconfigured by VZW
	2.	Deployed in an environment where the expected external address is
		RFC-1918 and this was coordinated up front.

That's a very different scenario from an ISP that needs to deploy another layer
of NAT onto an existing subscriber infrastructure where their current expected
external addresses are not RFC-1918 and there was no provider input or
coordination into the CPE interior addressing scheme(s).

Owen

On Feb 22, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

> You don't have a mifi, a 3g router,  or a handset with tethering do you. They may not have to problem to the same scale as a some existing providers but to pretend that there aren't cpe nats is is error.
> 
> Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
>> No, it really isn't.
>> 
>> Their 40 parallel RFC-1918 addressing domains are all under their control and
>> can easily be coordinated by VZW.
>> 
>> You're option 4 expands that to 100 million parallel addressing domains not
>> managed by VZW + 40 that are + some additional number that are, but, by
>> definition likely overlap the existing 40.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> On Feb 22, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> 
>>> How many parallel rfc 1918 adressing domains does vzw have? Hint, they have 100 million customers. The answer is around 40...  That actually is an explict demonstration of the 4th option.
>>> 
>>> William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:19 AM, George, Wes E [NTK]
>>>> <Wesley.E.George at sprint.com> wrote:
>>>>>> What I expect will happen is that they will, instead, each seek large allocations from ARIN to
>>>>>> support their NAT444 intermediary addresses and get them under current policies, thus accelerating
>>>>>> IPv4 exhaustion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [WEG] We're going around in circles again. If they were able to justify this allocation, they would
>>>>> have already requested it (prior to IANA exhaust) in an effort to reduce or eliminate the need for
>>>>> NAT in the first place.
>>>> 
>>>> Wes,
>>>> 
>>>> What makes you think they haven't? Have you looked at Verizon
>>>> Wireless' holdings lately?
>>>> 
>>>> I'd like to see those addresses come on the market. If they're tied up
>>>> doing NAT444, they can't.
>>>> 
>>>> -Bill
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>>>> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
>>>> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>>>> 
>> 
>>