Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC on shared transition space

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 23:24:29 -0400

"Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think there *is* a solution for this problem that doesn't
> consume some global space that should have been used in a
> normal way. Why would the IETF want to be party
> to that? It's an operational issue.

Hi Brian,

That's a very good question. Why is this monkey on the IETF's back?

The IAB determined that allocating a shared address space was the
IETF's responsibility:
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-June/022596.html

"RFC 2860 section 4.3 [leaves] such blocks as the responsibility, and
under the authority, of the IETF. [...] Setting aside special
addresses should be done within the existing process, i.e. by the
IETF."

> At the very minimum, if draft-weil is to proceed, it should describe the
> phase-out plan for the proposed prefix (i.e. the phase-out plan for CGN
> deployment). One approach to that is documented in RFC 6264.

draft-weil is stopgap in the sense that all present IPv4-centric work
is stopgap pending the ubiquitous deployment of IPv6. There's no need
to explicitly phase out this kind of component of IPv4 once IPv4's
overall phase-out has begun. And no realistic possibility of doing it
sooner.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ [email-masked]  [email-masked]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

---

From: William Check <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:50:02 +0000

I completely support this proposal.  Will be essential for both large and small operators.

    .... Bill Check