--On Monday, December 05, 2011 09:36 -0600 Pete Resnick
<presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/4/11 12:33 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>> 3) Use RFC-1918 address space. That would work for pure
>> "consumer" applications, but would break things like remote
>> employees using VPNs. I don't think that's a result we
>> should want to happen, because it affects "good-citizen"
>> Enterprises who aren't even using that ISP while their
>> employees are using the ISP.
>>
>
> Maybe I'm not understanding the problem you're worried about
> here, but as far as I can tell, remote employees using VPNs
> are still a problem with a new allocation: If an enterprise
> has two remote sites, each served by a different CGN, those
> two sites will get address conflicts in the new space. A new
> allocation doesn't solve that problem.
Agreed. Also, as more and more organizations use kits and
third-party software of various sorts to permit people to work
from home via VPNs, the notion of a 'pure "consumer"'
installation becomes more of a myth in various part of the
world. Consumer applications, yes. But, from an addressing
standpoint, a LAN is either pure-consumer or it isn't. There
are fewer of the former now than there were when 1918 was
adopted. Worse, many of those that exist today are likely to be
converted in the next year or two. An addressing policy that is
designed around the assumption that we can break addresses up
into "safe" pools that then breaks when "consumers" put in
applications that try to create VPNs is likely to be a far worse
support nightmare (and one of the expensive case-by-case
variety) than actually dealing with the issues, as a group, now.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf