[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension

[Jimmy Hess]

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:17 PM, George Bonser wrote:
> Across the entirety of residential gateways? In 9 months? Probably less
> than 0.05%.
> Owen

Very similar to the problem of ISPs getting IPv6 support across the
entirety of their residential gateways.
Perhaps one code update could add both capabilities.   If the ISP has
standardized gateway models, and remote update procedures,   updating
a significant proportion of the gateways in a short time might not be
much an issue.

Class E address space is really wasted;  and opening some of it for such uses
could very well be useful to some ISP(s) eventually. However, usefulness for
CGN/IPv6 transition is definitely  less than a reserved /10.



FWIW,  I support PP127.   CGN is going to be a reality on some
networks  in advance of,
or along with their IPv6 transition;  since there is still a need to
communicate with IPv4 hosts.

Downstream RFC1918 address space usage and resulting conflicts are
unnecessary pain
for the ISP, and it is obvious that separate address space should be
provided to minimize
pain with CGN.   It's unfortunate that IETF dropped the ball on that one.

--
-JH