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

Mark Smith ipng at 69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org
Sat Jan 22 18:42:44 EST 2011

On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:44:23 -0800
Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> >> 
> > 
> > To further expand on this, here would the scenario within an
> > primarily residential ISP -
> > 

> Take out this incorrect assumption and your entire scenario crumbles.
> So, unless you're offering funding for all of the retrofits that would be
> required for carriers to redesign their networks around your model,
> I think what you are proposing is a non-starter for many of the larger
> networks.

I have very little sympathy for the "poor little rich kids" you're
defending as they've had the time, money, resources and vendor
influence to be leaders in IPv6 deployment over the last 5 or more
years*. Large amounts of a public resource like global address space
should not be used to cheapen the transition for those who can most
afford to pay for it. That's the fundamental truth behind this proposal
- it's about avoiding spending money. You confirm that by using words
like "funding", "costs" and absurd suggestions that I should help them
pay for it if they have to adopt a NAT444 model that is more expensive
than what they'd prefer.

The thing is that my model is actually better for subscribers
- if address sharing is inevitable, then it seems to me that sharing
addresses between the minimal number of customers is the design goal -
1 address to 2 subscribers is the ideal. If $LARGE_PROVIDERS want to put
their LS NAPT devices far deeper in the network then they're going to be
reducing the quality of experience their subscribers are going to have.

* the proposal reads like it was written 5 years ago -

"Further, many CPE router devices used to provide residential or
small-medium business services have been optimized for IPv4 operation,
and typically require replacement in order to fully support the
transition to IPv6 (either natively or via one of many transition
technologies).  In addition, various consumer devices including
IP-enabled televisions, gaming consoles, medical and family monitoring
devices, etc. are IPv4-only, and cannot be upgraded.  While these will
eventually be replaced with dual-stack or IPv6 capable devices, this
transition will take many years. "

They've only realised that now?!!!

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list