On 12/3/2011 4:49 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Doug Barton <dougb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Doing the allocation will postpone the pain, until such time as those > > folks that we keep hearing have exhausted all of 1918 internally catch > > on, and then start using this block as 1918 space. > > But if any particular site uses this space for either i) 1918-type uses, or > ii) the intended use, do we care? As long as having some sites use it for > 1918 purposes doesn't harm the ability of _other_ sites to use it for the > purposes for which it is intended, I don't see the harm (although maybe I'm > missing something). Yes, you're missing something. :) The argument from the proponents goes something like this (refined way down, ignoring subtleties, etc.): "We cannot use 1918 for CGN because some customers use it internally, and they have CPEs that break if the same block is used on both sides. Therefore, we need a new, !1918 block for our side of the CGN." The problem with that argument is that there is nothing to stop customers from using the new block internally (and everyone involved so far has recognized that they inevitably will do this). Therefore the stated purpose of allocating the block is not going to be effective. Or, put another way, because the pain of dealing with customers who are using your CGN block internally is going to exist anyway, why not just use the least popular 1918 block(s) for this purpose and deal with the conflicts when they arise? Doug (but you're in good company) -- "We could put the whole Internet into a book." "Too practical." Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf