Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14.txt> (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space) to BCP

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

 



On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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.

+1

//cmh
_______________________________________________
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]