On Nov 30, 2011, at 9:41 PM 11/30/11, Victor Kuarsingh wrote: > Ralph, > > Please note the following report: > > WIDE Technical-Report in 2010 (DOC wide-tr-kato-as112-rep-01.pdf) Thanks for the reference. Do you have an easy pointer to retrieve the doc? I'm curious about how the data was gathered and what conclusions are drawn. - Ralph > > 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