In message <20111207220317.3530B18C09C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Noel Chiappa write s: > > From: Michael Richardson <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > 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 > > Not _exclusively_ 240/, though, because as has been pointed out numerous > times, for many contemplated CGN deployments, the CPE equipment connected > directly to the CGN-fronted fabric will be that already owned by the > customers, and with home customers, that may cover a very, very wide stretch > of manufacturers and models - i.e. whatever those customers already own. And > many of them won't support 240/. > > As I already pointed out: > > >> I suspect that CGNs are not, by and large, targetted to entirely new > >> customers ... as customer bases grow, some ISPs don't have enough > >> 'public' space to give one to each customer any more, so they want to > >> deploy CGN - and they need address space for the chunk of fabric > >> between the CGNs and the CPEs. In other words, its mostly _existing_ > >> customers who are about to be CGN'd. > > But as I previously pointed out in another message (too lazy to dig it up), > I do think we should have a chunk of 240/ space as _part_ of the CGN > allocation. And it needs a seperate I-D which indicates how equipement can signal that it supports 240.0/10. Returning such a address to equipment that is not prepared to receive is a *very* bad idea. > Noel > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- 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