Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ralph,

Please note the following report:

WIDE Technical-Report in 2010 (DOC wide-tr-kato-as112-rep-01.pdf)

Report suggested that all three RFC1918 blocks are well utilized.

Regards,

Victor K



On 11-11-30 9:19 PM, "Ralph Droms" <rdroms.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>On Nov 30, 2011, at 9:14 PM 11/30/11, Pete Resnick wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Another suggestion was the use of 10.64.0.0/10, with the argument that
>some devices may use 10.0.0.0 but those devices tend to start numbering
>with 10.0.0.0/24 or 10.0.1.0/24 and none would use addresses in
>10.64.0.0/10.
>
>Is there evidence that there are deployments today of devices that use
>addresses in 10.64.0.0/10?
>
>- Ralph
>
>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]