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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 29, 2011, at 5:53 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.
> 

Why? And what about all the other organizations that have had sufficient negative results?


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

This is relevant how?

> 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.
> 

I'd go with the latter of those two options.

Owen