Burn Rate? Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

Sat Jan 13 17:14:49 UTC 2024

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 at 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.

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20240113/84951c92/attachment.html>