In message <20111206055756.GD20780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nils son writes: > Subject: Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-s= > pace-request) Date: Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 08:38:56AM +1100 Quoting Mark Andr= > ews (marka@xxxxxxx): > =20 > > 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. Actually it isn't inherent. It's only if two of the parties involed are forced to use the same address pools that renumbering is inherent. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf