Keith Moore wrote:
One thing I'm pretty sure of is that allocating this space for another
RFC1918-like private network block isn't going to solve the collision
problem. I could see more utility in letting this be space for "router"
use only, say to allow cable ISPs to assign such addresses to
non-publicly accessible components in their networks. Such use would
presumably have fewer deployment barriers than use as either ordinary
public or private space.
This was a scenario that was envisaged by the authors of the draft as
being consistent with the intended re-designated use and consistent with
the caveats noted in the draft.
I could also see some utility in assigning smaller blocks from this
space to enterprise networks, similar to ULIAs in IPv6. Such blocks
could be used, for instance, to interconnect between private networks
without address collisions. But for that kind of use I would assume
that the deployment barriers would be much greater.
Bottom line - I think that any proposal to reassign class E addresses
needs to provide one or more specific use cases. And for each of those
cases, it should consider deployment cost vs. benefit, and compare that
to the cost vs. benefit of using IPv6.
The authors were interested in providing a succinct statement of the
administrative actions required to redefine the use of this currently
reserved address block.
It would be quite appropriate, as already noted in the draft, to
generate additional material describing use cases and actions required
on the part of network admins to enable use of this address prefix in
various scenarios.
If you, and others who have an interest in this topic, are volunteering
to write one (or more) such documents about use of this address block
and/or the caveats relating to such use, then that would be great!
thanks,
Geoff
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf