Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 12/5/11 08:37 , C. M. Heard wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> might require a cpe change.  about the same change as for the cpe to
>> recognize new/10 as non-public.
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something, but why would CPE need to recognize a 
> new /10 CGN block as non-public?  Isn't the whole idea to leave the 
> CPE unchanged and get the CGN boxes (and the rest of the core 
> network infrastructure) to recognize the /10 CGN block as 
> non-routeable?

Existing cpe supporting some applications treat public space differently
than private. e.g. in the context of 6to4, upnp igd, dynamic dns
registration and so on.

> //cmh
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]