Pete, We seem to be agreeing violently. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2012-02-02 11:33, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 1/31/12 1:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> 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. >> > > Ah. I think we're in pretty good agreement. The -14 text uses the words > "may be used as [RFC1918] private address space", and I agree with you > that we don't want to use those words. We need to say that though it is > similar to 1918 space, it has limitations. So I wouldn't object to the > above text , but I think we do have to give some indication of the flip > side. I want something that says that Shared Address Space can be used > for other Service-Provider-type uses and are not limited to CGNs. They > can be used on any network equipment willing to do address translation > across interfaces which both use the Shared Address Space, just as CGNs > do. That is, clarify throughout that this *isn't* just like 1918 space > (it has limitations and can only be used in particular circumstances), > but do describe what the conditions are under which it can be used. > > In your above, I would even strengthen "is not intended to be used as > additional [RFC1918] space" to "can not be use as [RFC1918] private > address space", and then maybe add something about where it can be used. > In the intro, I would change the second paragraph (and it's sub-bullets) > to: > > Shared Address Space is similar to [RFC1918] private address space in > that it is not global routeable address space and can be used by > multiple pieces of equipment. However, Shared Address Space has > limitations in its use that the current [RFC1918] private address > space does not have. In particular, Shared Address Space can only be > used on routing equipment that is able to do address translation > across router interfaces when the addresses are identical on two > different interfaces. > > Or something to that effect. Does that still capture that Shared Address > Space is similar to 1918 space, it can be used for purposes other than > CGN, but it can't be used everywhere 1918 addresses are used? > > pr > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf