Re: Consensus Call (Update): draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

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

 




On 12/7/11 11:39 AM, "Michael Richardson" <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>>>>>> "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.
In some cases, customers attach their Pcs directly to their Cable Modem
(w/o a router).  So, you can't exclude Pcs in this discussion.  They make
up a non-trivial percentage, and many don't support 240.x (My home Mac,
for instance, gives me an error about first quad out of range).
>
>    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.

That's not true on many cable networks.  Subscribers bring their own
routers, and would be responsible for upgrading/replacing them. Too many
devices will not support 240, raising the risk of using this range to an
unacceptable level.

Also, as was pointed out in an earlier email in this thread, some backbone
routers neither accept nor forward 240/4 addresses.

If the IETF changed the status of 240/4 five years ago, this would
possibly be worth considering. Since it didn't, it's too late now.
Equipment in the field is not ready, and won't be ready fast enough for
this to be a practical proposal.
>
>-- 
>]       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

_______________________________________________
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]