On Sep 22, 2011, at 2:10 PM, George, Wes wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 2:35 PM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt> (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space) to Informational RFC > > So here's what I would like to propose. The document goes forward but we make a much clearer statement with regards to the implications both for applications out there, as well as for subsequent IETF work: > > - what types of impacts may be felt by the rest of the network (not the ISP that is deploying NAT444) > - what kinds of application practices may be affected > - what IETF specifications may need revision due to this (e.g., do we need to revise ICE etc) > > Jari - > It's unclear from your statement if you're proposing adding the above to this draft or to a subsequent draft. > > To respond to your concerns and recommendation, I think that there are three separate issues here that merit some discussion: > > 1) Does IETF recommend the practice of inferring address scope in IPv4 based on address/bit value (the actual numbers), and then using this to trigger different behavior based on that inferred scope? > Whether IETF recommends it or not, it is common practice in CPE today. As such, I think we should recognize and address the reality rather than ignore it in the name of architectural purity. However, I am not convinced that these drafts are the place to address it. I don't believe the draft says that there is no link so much as we say that hard-coding such assumptions and making the assumption that all other addresses are globally reachable or have global reachability is a poor assumption. This draft doesn't change that fact and no clarification of scope linkage would change the fact that assuming your GUA (or presumed GUA) is globally unique or has global reachability is a bad assumption which is, nonetheless, an assumption built into many residential CPE devices today. > 2) Should draft-weil or draft-bdgks or both be formal updates to RFC1918 as additional private-scope use cases? > I don't believe so. I believe that conflating these drafts with RFC-1918 would only serve to further increase the probability that someone would consider this additional space for the same purpose. I would not oppose adding a reference to RFC-1918 that links to these documents as additional related considerations. > 3) Independent of consensus on the state of the *draft* directing it to happen, is there consensus on the *idea* that the /10 of IPv4 space should be reserved as shared transition space? > I believe there is. Further comment below... > 3) The reason I bring up consensus for the idea rather than the document is that there seems to be some urgency behind getting *something* approved to make the allocation happen, but it seems to be driving this strange behavior to push through incomplete documents and sort out the details in subsequent drafts. > Assuming that it is in fact necessary to get the allocation completed rapidly, I'd rather see us split the logistics of making that happen from the process required to produce consensus documents. This may be as simple as IAB or IESG giving ARIN (and/or IANA) provisional clearance to allocate or reserve the space on the belief that there is consensus to make the reservation, but that we want our documentation in order before it is made public for use. That removes any pressure to push the documents through before they are ready, while still ensuring that the address space is available when we are happy with the documentation. If for some reason the document fails to achieve consensus in its final form, there's no harm in then telling ARIN that they must release the reservation. > Additionally, if we're talking about pushing draft-weil back for that much analysis, we're now talking about a non-trivial delay, and in that case it may make sense to simply put the two drafts back together since weil was supposed to go through quickly as a minimal draft with bdgks being the one that the community spent more time on to ensure completeness and consensus. > There is urgency to make the space available for use, so, the split you describe does not actually help. The urgency is to make this space available before providers start having to deploy NAT444 without it, or, at this point, more accurately, to limit the amount of NAT444 deployed using GUA, Squat Space, or any of the other alternatives that these drafts show are a significantly worse alternative vs. this /10 shared transition space. Pushing draft weil back as you describe would be extremely harmful IMHO. Owen _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf