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

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

 



We're requesting a /10, not a /12 or /15 (devices attached to one CGN
might use the whole /15).  Such an allocation would be too small for a
regional CGN deployment at a larger ISP, and would likely result in
double-CGN.  Shared CGN Space really needs to be a /10.

Second, many ISPs do not control customer home network addressing
decisions.  It is not feasible to tell a customer to renumber, especially
when the customer is legitimately using RFC1918 space in accordance with
the RFC.  

Unfortunately, your proposal doesn't actually solve the problem we're
facing.

Chris




On 12/7/11 3:35 PM, "Måns Nilsson" <mansaxel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Subject: Re: Consensus Call (Update):
>draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request Date: Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at
>11:31:11AM -0800 Quoting David Conrad (drc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
>> Michael,
>> 
>> On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> > The CGN space seems like a very good place to use 240.0/10.
>> 
>> I believe the main driver behind this discussion is the need to deal
>>with deployed non-field-upgradable CPE that has issues with having RFC
>>1918 space being assigned on the WAN interface.  I'd guess said hardware
>>would also likely have issues with 240/4 space being instead.
> 
>I believe we can narrow the problem with RFC 1918 addresses down to "same
>or overlapping prefix on the outside as inside", rather than assuming
>that any use of 1918 space on the outside interface is detrimental.
>Does anybody know of any evidence to the contrary?
>
>Vendor default allocations of RFC1918 to "broadband router" LAN interfaces
>are limited to nets 10 and 192.168. Does anybody know of any evidence to
>the contrary? 
>
>Therefore, point out a /15 from 172.16.0.0/12 and be done with it. The
>few conflicts arising will fall in two classes:
>
>a/ People who have knowingly changed their LAN prefix.
>
>b/ Organisations large enough to use _all_ of RFC 1918 inside.
>
>"a" means they can change again. Problem solved.
>
>"b" means that they are large enough to be able to buy public external
>addresses, if they do not already posess swamp space. Problem solved.
>
>
>-- 
>Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
>MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
>Now I understand the meaning of "THE MOD SQUAD"!

_______________________________________________
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]