Address conflicts are also going to happen within the ISP network / back-office etc. 172.16.0.0/12 is used there.
Daryl
On 30 November 2011 20:52, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2011-12-01 09:28, Chris Grundemann wrote:
...
> It is more conservative to share a common pool.It suddenly occurs to me that I don't recall any serious analysis
of using 172.16.0.0/12 for this. It is a large chunk of space
(a million addresses) and as far as I know it is not used by default
in any common CPE devices, which tend to use the other RFC 1918 blocks.
I realise that ISPs with more than a million customers would have to
re-use this space, whereas a /10 would only bring this problem above 4M
customers, but at that scale there would be multiple CGN monsters anyway.
Sorry to bring this up on the eve of the telechat.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf