Skip to main content

IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space
RFC 6598

Yes

(Ron Bonica)

No Objection

(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Russ Housley)
(Stewart Bryant)

Abstain

(David Harrington)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-11-30)
I concur with Stewart that there does not appear to be IETF consensus around this I-D.

I am concerned that the alternative to this has been presented as "if you don't allocate the address space, the ISPs will just squat on another space." However, this also seems to be less worser than any other proposal on the table.

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2011-12-01)
I agree with Ralph's DISCUSS: We need to first come up with a list of criteria by which consensus can be judged. While I agree with most folks that there is *disagreement* on the list as to whether this allocation should be made, I think some of the issues on which there is disagreement are not legitimate criteria for the consensus call. (For example, "Is CGN a viable service model for IPv4?" is *not* something that we should be using as a criteria for consensus.) Before we come to a conclusion on consensus, we need to lay out the legitimate issues being discussed and whether there is consensus on each of them.

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

No Objection (2011-09-12)
I suggest changing "heritage" to "legacy".

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

No Objection (2012-02-15)

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2011-09-22)
1) I support Stewart's discuss.

2) I support Russ' discuss.

3) I support Wes' (and Pete's) discuss.

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-02-14)
Based on more and more and more and more discussion I'm reluctantly 
ok with this. (Still)


In December I said: 

   I think additionally allocating part of 240/4 would be a fine thing to do at
   the same time within the same document. I would not be that keen on 
   punting on the 240/4 part allocation until later since that would engender
   most of the same discussion.

I still think that'd be good but it doesn't seem to have gotten traction
so I'm in the end also ok to go ahead without that.

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(David Harrington; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Abstain

Abstain ()

                            

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Abstain

Abstain (2011-11-29)
"NAT4444" should be "NAT444", I believe, in section 1, paragraph 3.