On 24 Sep 2011, at 02:20, Keith Moore wrote: > To me it seems clear that the risks associated with this proposal are less than the other risks. Software that assumes that IPv4 space other than RFC 1918 space is unambiguous will break in either case. But at least with this proposal, there's a well-defined and easily-understood path to fix such software to minimize the breakage. +1, but I'm a little bit concerned about transition mechanisms which depend on exclusively upstream NAT functions rather than in addition to the CPE, i.e. DS-Lite. As it stands, the two cases can be distinguished, and it seems to me to be against this proposal, for that situation, since private addresses will probably provoke "Find my public address" semantics in existing software rather better than "Public-seeming" addresses on directly-attached hosts behind a DS-Lite gateway. Otherwise, yep, it's inevitable. Cheers, Sabahattin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf