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

[Joe Maimon]

Mark Smith wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:30:00 -0700
> Owen DeLong<owen at delong.com>  wrote:
>
>> The problems are multiple:
>>
>> 	1.	It will increase the number of customers that must be moved from
>> 		current access technologies to NAT444.
>>
>
> So? IPv4 address sharing is inevitable. The only way to be fair about
> it to customers is to provide two product offerings - a shared and
> non-shared IPv4 address service, and make the latter pay more for it if
> they value it.
>
> Regardless, 2011-5 does not say minimising NAT444 use is one
> of it's goals. Being a /10, I think it is implying that NAT444 is going
> to be the default for normal residential customers.
>

Precisely. Expect organizations who have had sufficient positive results 
with their NAT444 deployments to not limit it to new users only, for 
many reasons, some of which they cannot be faulted for.

Some of these organizations will as a result have more available 
resources then anybody else put together.

So either NAT444 is so horrible that only new users can be put into it, 
or there is a new sheriff in town, along the lines of the golden rule.


Joe