Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14.txt> (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space) to BCP

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:39:03 -0500 (EST)

> From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>

    > We already have a way to make collisions "very unlikely," don't use
    > either of 192.168.[01]. 

I gather that that's not desirable, because otherwise people wouldn't be
asking for another block. Of course it could probably be made to work
somehow - with enough thrust, etc, etc. But that's not the point - engineering
is (or ought to be) all about balancing costs and benefits.

If the people involved were asking for something incredibly
painful/expensive in order to make their lives easier, the answer would
rightly be 'no'. The cost would far outweigh the benefit. But they're not.
All they're asking for is a modest chunk of address space, and the cost of
doing that is not significant - we allocate chunks of space _all the time_.

    >> This is only about allocating a chunk of address space.

    > I wish that were true. :)

But it is. As I said before, the IETF has precisely two choices:

- See CGN deployed using various hacks (e.g. squatting on space)
- See CGN deployed using a block of space allocated for that purpose

Allocate, or don't allocate. That's the only choice.

    > It makes their job infinitely easier if they can be given a /10
    > that, at least in the short term, they can be close to 100% certain
    > will not be used inside a customer network. That way they don't have
    > to think hard about their network design (and don't have to take as
    > many customer service calls)

So, I gather that given the choice above, your choice would be 'I prefer
the ugly solution' - because you want to make their life as miserable as
you can, to punish them for the high crime of deigning to defy your sense
of what's best for the network.

Talk about "a very irresponsible way for an SDO to conduct themselves", to use
your own very apt phrase.

	Noel

---

From: Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:46:23 +0100

> is (or ought to be) all about balancing costs and benefits.

Close. The cost to these late adapters without sensible business plans
will be higher if they aren't given this allocation. Truth is, that the
same problem they are facing has been dealt with in corporate networks
for at least 14 years -- I do remember being the victim of a RFC1918
address plan with double NAT for private inter-company links in 1998.

The problem is known, solutions exist, and these people have no place
requesting a critically scarce resource just to buy themselves fewer
customer support calls. Fewer customer support calls one gets by building
a better network, not by crying to get community pity.

> doing that is not significant - we allocate chunks of space _all the time_.

Soon, "all the time" won't be. 
The IANA has no way of allocating this -- they've run out. 
Which RIR is going to part with a /10 then? APNIC has run out.  The rest
of the RIRen are, IIRC, operating in sunset mode, where allocations are 
_very_ restricted.

That is why address space should not be allocated. Because there _is_
a cost, the cost of not being able to allocate unique address space when
there is a more legitimate need than the proposed wasting of an entire
/10 to please those who did not do the right thing.  And to top that off,
they are too cheap to do the homework of proving their precarious
situation. They just state their need and expect us to accept it and
codify it in RFC format.

> Allocate, or don't allocate. That's the only choice.

This sounds like a bullying ultimatum. We are not there yet, the alley
is wider, and U-turns are possible.

The choice is and was between "do CGN using RFC1918" and "build a
network that takes advantage of the latest 15 years of developement
in networking".

One can argue whether there is significant short-term gains for a
commercial entity in doing the right thing as opposed to just cutting
corners. And, I firmly believe that any SDO not in touch with reality is
bordering on silly. But there is a definite difference between being a
tool for the shortsighted on the one hand and  crafting good solutions
to technical problems on the other.

-- 
Måns

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:25:13 +1100

In message <[email-masked]>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns?= N
ilsson writes:
> > =
> >     > either of 192.168.[01]. =
> 
> > =
> 
> > somehow - with enough thrust, etc, etc. But that's not the point - engine=
> ering
> will be higher if they aren't given this allocation.

How is this a "late adapter" problem?  You either have enough
addresses to give every customer a IPv4 address or you don't.  If
you don't have enough addresses you are going to have to use some
sort of CGN whether that is NAT444 or AFTR or some other transition
technology which shares IPv4 addresses.

Isn't the IETF's preferred transition strategy still "dual stack"
or are you thinking that ISP's that can't get enough IPv4 address
have to go IPv6 only?

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]