On 11/29/2011 13:59, Chris Donley wrote: > And that's one of the reasons this draft updates 5735. If routers make > decisions as to whether or not to enable a feature based on whether > behind a public or private address, having a defined address range for > CGN space will be significantly easier to deal with than to have > arbitrary address ranges selected on a per-ISP basis. But that's certainly not the only way to handle that problem, right? If the router needs to be updated to recognize the new space anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to update it with a more generic mechanism to signal "You're behind a private address?" That way you can use the same mechanism for IPv4 and IPv6. Doug -- "We could put the whole Internet into a book." "Too practical." Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf