On 12/2/11 12:06 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
I think there is an unstated premise in Pete's question that the set of customers behind that legacy gear has a stable usage pattern of private addresses. That is, if the current set of customers behind that legacy gear uses 10/8 then use of any other RFC 1918 address on the CGN is "safe". I do not think that is a safe assumption.
Nope, but your close. The assumption in my question is that if the legacy (broken?) gear in question all uses 10/8 *and* we publish a document that declares a particular (presently unused by said gear) block of 1918 address space is henceforth off limits to use in equipment that can't translate when addresses are identical on the outside and the inside, then the use of that 1918 address space might be "safe" for CGNs to use. I do not presume that it *is* safe; only that the question has not been answered.
I also strongly suspect that any vendor in its collective right mind which had available a solution like using 172.16/12 would have done so long before enduring the pain of being nibbled to death by the IETF's ducks. It's not like these guys haven't read RFC 1918 and simply assumed 10/8 was the only network available.
I actually suspect that they didn't consider the possibility of documenting/declaring something like 172.16/12 only for use in cases where the NAT could deal with it on the inside and outside. Maybe they did. Again, I haven't heard one way or the other.
pr -- 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