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

[Jack Bates]

On 1/22/2011 10:36 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> FB> Yes, there will be service providers who do just as you described, but
> we shouldn't penalize all those who can't currently justify additional
> requests, anticipate future growth, acknowledge that NAT444 is the
> transition technology they need, and need a path moving forward.
>

I'm not saying penalize. I'm saying that we either don't support the /10 
and make the eyeballs retask their existing IPv4 address space (which 
will still free up some of their address space, just not as much as if 
we gave them the /10), or the policy must MANDATE that all NAT444 
justifications must utilize the /10. This differs from RFC-1918, in that 
it specifically tasks the /10 to a purpose and mandates that it be used 
for said purpose when people justify for IPv4 space.

The policy should not be wide open with an optional /10 which will be 
tasked with serving a purpose, but people can just ignore that purpose 
as well. This would leave a new opening for abuse.

> FB>  I hope that you can avoid NAT444.  I'm hoping to, too.  In the words of
> Randy Bush, I encourage my competitors to pursue NAT444.
>

Benefits of being a small ISP. I have a lot of flexibility. Benefits of 
being  the only provider in many areas, I have a lot of flexibility and 
no Randy's encouraging me. The first place I expect to see NAT44, and it 
generally will not be NAT444 though still subject to upnp breaking, is 
on modem banks (yes, there are still vast pools of modem bank IP 
addresses and even people that dial into them). Due to the limitation of 
connectivity, modem bank users utilize a subset of protocols which 
NAT444 breaks. It will, however, free up vast amounts of space.


Jack