Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

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

 



Subject: Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request) Date: Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 08:38:56AM +1100 Quoting Mark Andrews (marka@xxxxxxx):
 
> Ask everyone everywhere that is using this block, in good faith,
> for some purpose other than supporting addresses behind a CGN to
> renumber out of this block of RFC 1918 addresss which is now being
> re-purposed 16 years after it was allocated.

I do not understand why it is so hard to come to terms with the fact
that IF you have -- in whatever faith -- chosen to use non-unique address
space, you have been taking your chanches that sometime, in the future,
you WILL have to renumber to keep the illusion of quasi-uniqueness. This
goes for everybody. Customer, operator, middlebox or CPE vendor,
and my mother. This is inherent in all non-unique space. A new shared
allocation from the RIR pools or Class E will not change this fundamental
characteristic.  Therefore, 1918 space, being the prime example of
non-uniqueness, should be quite suited to populate the inside of a CGN.

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
Am I SHOPLIFTING?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
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]