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

[Joe Maimon]

Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>    
>> 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.
>>
>>      
> You can disagree all you want, but, the majority of (large) providers that have studied the issue do not.
>    

Frankly, the advantages to them are clear. It is the disadvantages which 
are far less clear, studied or not. And I am including as an advantage 
the likelyhood that non-rfc1918 happen to look prettier and shinier to 
customers.

>> 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.
>>
>>      
> Lack of support in the CPE makes 240/4 a likely non-starter for this.
>    

If a CPE update to roll out DS-Lite is on the table, not to mention 
ipv6, so is 240/4.

> RFC-1918 is also a non-starter for most of the large providers. They'll get GUA allocations before they'll use 1918 in most cases.
>    
That is assuming it is available. And if it is available, why wouldnt 
they get it? False dichotomy. They will get gua until they cant get no 
more and then they will use 1918 or whatever else is available.

>> Even if they do not find those options as attractive as this /10.
>>
>>      
> If I were to rank the options in order of attractiveness (from an ISP perspective), they would be:
>
> 	2011-5
>    
Benefits only a specific segment of the community, ignores the needs of 
the rest.
> 	Consortium-based assignment
>    
Has its own advantages.
> 	Community pool of GUA addresses
>    
Just a variation of above
> 	New GUA allocations or assignments from RIR (individually to various ISPs)
>    
Going to happen anyway
> 	Use of existing GUA space (forcing some fraction of existing customers into NAT-444 degraded services)
>    
Going to happen anyway
> 	Use of RFC-1918 space
>    
Which will work well enough with some intelligence applied.
> 	Use of 240/4
>    
Continuously torpedoed by self fulfilling prophets.
> I'm pretty sure that they'll find a way to make one of the top 4 work. Since the first 3 basically boil down to the same effect as 2011-5, I would say that it's a relatively safe bet that the dichotomy between 1-3 and 4 is a valid and accurate one.
>
> Owen
>
>
>    

Joe