On 01/30/2012 15:03, The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: > - 'IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared CGN Space' > <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14.txt> as a BCP > > On its December 15, 2011 telechat, the IESG reviewed version 10 of this > document and requested various changes. These changes are reflected in > the draft version 14 and the IESG now solicits community input on the > changed text only. As I (and many others) remain opposed to this entire concept I think it's incredibly unfortunate that the IESG has decided to shift the topic of conversation from "whether" this should happen to "how" it should happen. But comments more to the point below .... > Please send substantive comments to the ietf@xxxxxxxx > mailing lists by 2012-02-16. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to > iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of > the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > This document requests the allocation of an IPv4 /10 address block to > be used as Shared Address Space to accommodate the needs of Carrier > Grade Network Address Translation (CGN) devices. It is anticipated > that Service Providers will use this Shared Address Space to number > the interfaces that connect CGN devices to Customer Premise Equipment > (CPE). > > Shared Address Space is distinct from RFC1918 private address space > because it is intended for use on Service Provider networks. > However, it may be used as RFC 1918 private address space in certain > circumstances. Details are provided in the text of this document. > > As this document proposes the allocation of an additional special-use > IPv4 address block, it updates RFC 5735. > > The following text captures the most salient change between version 10 and 14 of this document: > > Shared Address Space is IPv4 address space designated for Service > Provider use with the purpose of facilitating CGN deployment. Also, > Shared Address Space can be used as additional [RFC1918] space I think it's a feature that we're finally willing to admit that this new block is going to be used as 1918 space. Given that previous requests for new 1918 space have been (rightly) denied, I think this document should describe why this request is better/more important than previous requests, and what the bar will be for future requests for new 1918 space. > when > at least one of the following conditions is true: > > o Shared Address Space is not also used on the Service Provider side > of the CPE. > > o CPE routers behave correctly when using the same address block on > both the internal and external interfaces. When I previously proposed this as *the* proper solution I was told that it wasn't in any way practical. Now that we're apparently willing to discuss it as *a* possible solution one wonders why a new block is necessary at all. Doug -- It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf