Hi, Niels:
0) Your sender name
is in an unusual format. It becomes just the generic NANOG
address as the recipient for me to MSG send to.
1) " You have posted
this statement like five times now in the past two days. ":
Perhaps so, I have
been responding to numerous comments since my initial post in
response to Karim Mekkaoui's inquiry. Since I have to address
each individually, some from different angles, while some others
are new discussions or debates, it is no surprise that the same
expression has been used more than once to deal with them
respectively. If you count this specific item on the sideline,
you definitely will see the repeats. The important criterion
here is whether any of them are out of the context? (To be
honest with you, I myself feel that I have been playing broken
records on this pretty simple and straightforward topic.)
2) " Who is asking for
this expansion of 100.64/10 (which you misspelled, by the way)?
":
Thanks for catching
the typo. My understanding is that there is a general desire
(human nature) to get a larger netblock than 100.64/10 in
CG-NAT. This could be used for either growing market or less
dynamic reassignment. The 240/4 can provide additional benefits
to CG-NAT operations such as static addressing that no one has
realized possible. So, I am putting the solution on the table.
This is a basic process of sharing the new discoveries. Is there
anything wrong with the process? On the other hand, if RFC6598
had picked 240/4 instead of 100.64/10 as the netblock, we do not
need today's discussions.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-13 12:14)
On 2024-01-12 07:34, Niels Bakker
wrote:
* aychen@avinta.com (Abraham
Y. Chen) [Fri 12 Jan 2024, 13:09 CET]:
EzIP proposes that 240/4 be used like
10.64/10 in CG-NAT. which is reusable for each isolated
geographical area. Thus, there is no "Burn-rate" to talk about.
You have posted this statement like five times now in the past two
days.
Who is asking for this expansion of 100.64/10 (which you
misspelled, by the way)? Where are the claims that the amount of
private space behind a CGNAT is the limiting factor in CGNAT
deployments?
[five meters of superfluous quote history snipped]
-- Niels.
