[125268] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Sun Apr 11 15:21:22 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <CF367F6B-C995-4794-933D-AA7DC9513CF7@delong.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:20:48 -1000
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 11, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Well, if they want to operate under the previous regime, then, they =
should simply return any excess resources now rather than attempting to =
monetize them under newer policies as that was the policy in place at =
the time.
Why? There were no policies to restrict how address space was =
transferred (or anything else) when they got their space.
> Certainly they should operate under one of those two regimes rather =
than some alternate reality not related to either.
When most of the legacy space was handed out, there were no restrictions =
on what you could do/not do with address space simply because no one =
considered it necessary. Much later, a policy regime was established =
that explicitly limits rights and you seem surprised when the legacy =
holders aren't all that interested.
> Interestingly, APNIC seems to have had little trouble asserting such =
in their region,
Hah. I suspect you misunderstand.
> Can you point to a single working deployment of multi-layer NAT?
I suppose it depends on your definition of "working". =20
I've been told there are entire countries that operate behind =
multi-later NAT (primarily because the regulatory regime required ISPs =
obtain addresses from the PTT and the PTT would only hand out a couple =
of IP addresses).
I have put wireless gateways on NAT'd hotel networks and it works for =
client services, for some value of the variable "works".
> I can recall experiences with several attempts which had varying =
levels of dysfunction. Some actually done at NANOG meetings, for =
example. As such, I'm willing to say that there is at least anecdotal =
evidence that multi-layer NAT either is not workable or has not yet been =
made workable.
The problem is, anecdotal evidence isn't particularly convincing to =
folks who are trying to decide whether to fire folks so they'll have =
money to spend on upgrading their systems to support IPv6.
Regards,
-drc
=20=
