Hi Pete, On 2012-02-01 08:14, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 1/31/12 11:59 AM, George, Wes wrote: >>> From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >>> >>> Is that wise? I thought (IIRC, and maybe I'm spacing) the whole >>> reason for >>> allocating this space was that 1918 space _couldn't_ easily be used >>> for CGN >>> because there were too many conflicting usages. >>> >> [WEG] yes, but the general sense I got from the ensuing discussion was >> that no one expects anyone to actually adhere to that advice (ie MUST >> NOT be used as substitute for 1918 space), and as soon as the space is >> released, it'll be "cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria..." >> because everyone and their cousin will start using it as 1918-bis >> anyway, no matter whether the IETF wags their fingers at them or not. I have no doubt that this space will be (mis)used as additional private ambiguous address space. But IMHO the text should make it clear that this is the wrong way to use it and give the reasons why - basically the same information as in the new text, but stated exactly the other way round. For example Shared Address Space is IPv4 address space designated for Service Provider use with the purpose of facilitating CGN deployment. Shared Address Space is not intended to be used as additional [RFC1918] space, because either or both of the following issues might arise: o Shared Address Space could also be used on the Service Provider side of the CPE, with overlapping subnet or host addresses. o Some CPE routers behave incorrectly when using the same address block on both the internal and external interfaces. > Speaking as one of the bozos^h^h^h^h^h ADs whose comments (and suggested > text) ended the document up here, let me suggest the slightly less > pessimistic view from Wes's, and the reason that I think this > *shouldn't* specifically update 1918: > > This *is* a special use address block that is akin to 1918. It is > non-routable address space, just like 1918. But unlike 1918, this block > is defined as "might be used by your ISP on your outside interface". So, > people using it inside their networks (which, I agree with Wes, will > happen, and like everything else on the net, will be done stupidly by > some) have been told that this is *not* private use space and that they > use it at their own risk and their CGN service might stop working if > they use it in a way not described in this document. But I'd hate for us > to allocate space to "CGNs only" when it's obvious that this can be used > for a whole class of these sorts of things, and can be used by other > people who build sane equipment that understands "shared" addresses can > appear on two different interfaces. These aren't "private" addresses a > la 1918, they're "shared", so it's not an addition to that space. Let's > properly document what it is we're doing, giving people fair warnings. Exactly, hence my suggested text above. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf