On Nov 28, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: > ... > Because the October 10 last call elicited so little response, and because many community members have privately expressed strong opinions regarding this draft, I will summarize outstanding issues below. The following are arguments *against* draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request: > > - Allocation of a special-use /10 does not hasten the deployment of IPv6. It only extends the life of the IPv4 network. Since the detractors of this draft admit that operators will use another address space anyway if they're not given a /10, then the above argument is false. No matter what, CGNs will be deployed for IPv4 life-support. > - If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will be used as additional RFC 1918 address space, despite a specific prohibition against such use stated by the draft. So what?? We write all kinds of RFCs with MUST NOTs in them that people ignore - but we can't stop writing RFCs just because that sometimes happens. The best we can do is write the MUST NOT, explain exactly why it's a MUST NOT, and then hope people listen. (and BTW, the current draft does not sufficiently explain why not, imho) > - If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will encourage others to request still more special-use address space. So what?? They can request all they want, whether we publish this RFC or not. We'll be able to say "no" to them if their request falls in the same class as this one, or we'll be able to say "yes" to them if there's some technical merit to what they want. That's how things work, no? > - Some applications will break. These applications share the characteristic of assuming that an interface is globally reachable if it is numbered by an non-RFC 1918 address. To date, the only application that has been identified as breaking is 6to4, but others may be identified in the future. Since the detractors of this draft admit that operators will use another address space anyway if they're not given a /10, then the above argument is false. There will be some address space used that is not publicly reachable and is not in the RFC1918 space, so these applications will break *anyway*. The question is if 6to4 and other use-cases would like to know what that address is going to be so they can fix themselves to handle the new address, or whether we keep them broken. -hadriel _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf