> Ted, your response does not address what I said at all. Not
> one bit. Let's assume that *every* enterprise used every
> last address of 172.16/12 (and, for that matter ever bit of
> 1918 space). That's irrelevant and still does not address my
> question. The question is whether these addresses are used
> BY EQUIPMENT THAT CAN'T NAT TO IDENTICAL ADDRESSES ON THE
> EXTERIOR INTERFACE. I am happy to accept an answer of, "Yes,
> all 1918 address space is used by such equipment", but
> nobody, including you, has actually said that.
one reason enterprises use 172.16/12 for stuff is because that way,
when their VPNs come up with people's residents, they do not immediately
conflict with the LAN at the home/coffee shop, etc.
And, there is a further consideration: this space only has to be useable
to for CGNs, for ISPs that have new customers that they want to hook up
via IPv4. Most of these ISPs already provide a home gateway (often
integrated with the DSL model or cable modem), and it only has to work
with that brand!
So I favour 172.16/12 or 224/10.
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
then sign the petition.
Attachment:
pgpHVqmG1rcFK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf