>>>>> "Benson" == Benson Schliesser <bschlies@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Benson> However, there is one essential point that I'd like to
Benson> clarify: We need a common standard for numbering CGN NAT444
Benson> deployments.
Benson> For NAT444 deployments of CGN, we are talking about a new
Benson> scope - the intermediate "CGN zone" network - that is
Benson> neither global or local. Within this scope, one cannot
Benson> expect end-to-end (global) address fidelity (because traffic
Benson> is NATted), nor can one expect forwarding to be confined to
Benson> a single organization (because it touches CPE etc).
Okay, while this address touches the CPE, it does not cross it.
Benson> PS - I also support turning 240/4 into unicast, as others
Benson> have recommended. But this will not help in the immediate
Benson> future timeframe, for the currently deployed equipment,
Benson> which is driving the need for Shared CGN Space. It may be
Benson> complementary, but does not reduce the need for a /10
Benson> assignment.
The CGN space seems like a very good place to use 240.0/10.
A single organization often controls and specifies all equipment which
will use the address space, and even in the cases where customers have
their own equipment, a lot of it will have no problem with 240.
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
then sign the petition.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf