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

[Joe Maimon]

Owen DeLong wrote:
>

>
> Due to the support issues, no provider in their right mind is going to use 1918 space for the middle-layer in a NAT444 scenario.

Due to the support issue, no provider in their right mind is going to 
share addresses across multiple customers.

Apparently, when it comes to support issue, the question remains one of 
degree. And I disagree sharply with you as to the effect on the equation 
the use of 1918 brings.

>
> As such, the question remains the same...
>
> Do we allocate a single /10 so that everyone can use the same address space, or, do we force each provider to build their own collection of GUA addresses allocated to this same purpose?
>
> Owen
>

False dichotomy.

Or providers will use GUA regardless of the /10. Or providers will pool 
a collection together. Or providers will go ahead and use space that 
already exists, either their own or rfc1918 or even 240/4.

Even if they do not find those options as attractive as this /10.


Joe