On 12/1/11 20:28 , Pete Resnick wrote: > On 12/1/11 10:12 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 12/01/2011 19:47, Pete Resnick wrote: >> >>> The current draft says that the reason 1918 space can't be used is that >>> equipment that deals in 1918 address space is hosed if 1918 addresses >>> are used on their external interface. >>> >> Let's assume that's true for a second (I haven't seen any evidence of >> that). We all know that if the /10 is allocated that people are going to >> use it for 1918 space. So, back to square 1. >> > > No, that's not true. Once this document claims that a particular block > of addresses will be used on both internal and external interfaces, > whether they're from a part of 1918 space that isn't used by the broken > equipment *or* from a new /10 (which obviously isn't used by the broken > equipment), any *new* use of this address space by *newly* broken > equipment is acceptable to the CGN people. The only thing the current > document worries about is deployed equipment that the CGN people can't > push back on. So either a new /10 or 1918 space not used by current > broken equipment addresses this problem. > >>> Brian claimed that perhaps >>> 172.16/12 space might not be used by that equipment. Robert claimed that >>> perhaps only 192.168 and 10.0.0.x addresses are used by that equipment. >>> So the question I posed was, "Does any of *that* equipment use 172.16/12 >>> (or 10.x/16) space?" Nobody has said "yes". >>> >>> And *I'm* still not claiming that the answer is "No." I simply don't >>> know. But I'm inclined to hear from anybody to indicate that there is >>> *any* evidence that the answer is "Yes". That would make me much more >>> comfortable in concluding that new specialized address space is the >>> better horn of this bull to throw ourselves on. >>> >> The lack of research on this point has been pointed out in the past, and >> TMK has never been addressed. >> > > Ron's point (that part of the problem is that people simply don't know) > is well-taken, but if there is not even anecdotal information that > 172.16/12 or 10.x/16 is used by broken equipment, I'd like there to be > some research before we say that allocating a /10 is necessary. it's simpler than that. assuming that there existing a pool of devices for which it can be stipulated: * does not support a collision between internal and external address ranges * has a collision between it's internal address ranges and assigned external prefix in 10/8 It seems unlikely in the extreme that home cpe statifying both conditions would also have a collision with an assignment out of 172.16/12. I have never found the arguement that, that particular problem intractable enough to benifit from and additional prefix to be particularly compelling. > pr > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf