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

[Frank Bulk]

Every operator would be forced through that painful initial conversion.
While nothing is impossible, I'd rather have the industry spend resources
moving ahead with IPv6.  

Yes, eyeball networks benefit from this policy proposal more than content
providers.  I don't believe that eyeball networks will leverage NAT444 to
sell "extra" IPv4 -- the breakage that accompanies NAT444 is too painful.
And if NAT444 was so successful, what market value would that IPv4 address
space have?  It would be cheaper for those supposed buyers to implement a
CGN.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates at brightok.net] 
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 8:27 PM
To: frnkblk at iname.com
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4
Address Extension

On 1/21/2011 6:36 PM, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
> * Yes, while operators could draw from their own allocated space to
> accomplish NAT444, their combined efforts would likely result in more than
a
> /10 of IPv4 space being used and require an extraordinary amount of
effort.
> Rather than force them to renumber or go through all that work, let's just
> allocate a /10 for this and be done with it.

They'll be forced to renumber with /10. Using their own space, they 
could regionalize existing blocks, effectively doubling, tripling, 
quadrupling their existing allocated space. What is the complaint? That 
we must feed more than a single /10 netblock into the NAT444 device's 
config? The initial conversion blocks may require thought and planning, 
but once implemented, it should flow smoothly.

I've heard a lot of "but we can punish only some people with the /10 
allowing us to reuse our global space for more important areas where we 
won't punish people." Let's be honest. What we are saying is, give us a 
/10 to punish the cheap residential guys, so we can utilize all our 
other space for those who pay us money. Eyeball networks are the ones 
that can deploy NAT444 effectively, and I see no reason to give them 
more global address space, which they won't be handing back to ARIN for 
content providers to use (they'll just pad their own pockets with their 
side hosting businesses since they reclaimed millions of broadband IP's 
which are of high value).


Jack