|
Daryl, The problem described in the draft is that CPEs use 1918 space *and that many of them can't deal with the fact that there might be addresses on the outside interface that are the same as on the inside interface*. The claim was made by Randy, among others, that only 192.168/16 space was used by such unintelligent CPEs. I believe I have seen the claim that 10/8 space is also used in unintelligent equipment that can't deal with identical addresses inside and outside. Is there reason to believe that within the ISP network / back-office etc. that there is equipment that can't deal with 17.16/12 space being on both the inside and outside? I haven't seen anyone make that specific claim. If we know that 172.16/12 used both inside and outside will break a significant amount of sites that CGNs will be used with, we can ignore this argument. But if not, then let's rewrite the document to say that CGNs should use 172.16/12 and that any device that wants to use 172.16/12 needs the ability to deal with identical addresses on the inside and the outside interface. Of course, all equipment should have always been able to deal with identical addresses inside and outside for all 1918 addresses anyway. But if we think the impact of using 172.16/12 for this purpose will cause minimal harm, then there's no compelling reason to allocate new space for this purpose. pr On 11/30/11 3:04 PM, Daryl Tanner wrote: It's not just about the CPE devices and customer LANs. -- Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 |
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf