In message <4ED55726.5090209@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Doug Barton writes: > 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. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It can be both. Having address space that the CPE can identify as non-public without the ISP having to configure something is a a good thing. As much as I would like to see IPv6 native everywhere as soon as possible forcing each ISP to choose part of their allocated address space or to use RFC 1918 address space behind CGN's is not good resource management. RFC 1918 space is suppose to be used *within* a enterprise. Using it to *connect* enterprises is out of bounds. This also force ISP's to be less wasteful of IPv6 space with their 6rd domains as they can nolonger just shove the entire 32 IPv4 bits into the IPv6 address with multiple use of this space within the ISP. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf