On 2/9/12 10:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
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.
As an AD who is now comfortable with going forward with the document, I do want to point out that the IESG as a whole has *not* come to consensus on this document. There are still not the required number of "Yes" or "No objection" ballots for the document to move forward. So I don't think it's accurate to say that the IESG is only deciding "how" it should happen.
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] spaceI think it's a feature that we're finally willing to admit that this new block is going to be used as 1918 space.
I expect there will be clarifications as per the earlier messages in this thread: This is *not* to be used as additional 1918 space. (See my message of 2/1/12 4:33 PM -0600. ) 1918 space is guaranteed to be private, and devices have been built that have made the assumption that the space is private and they will not see it on a network that is not within its administrative control. This proposed space is most assuredly not that. It's shared and therefore has additional constraints on use that 1918 space does not. It is certainly *similar* to 1918 space in that it is not globally routeable, but it is not 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.
I hope it does, and if it is not sufficient, I expect text will be accepted by the authors. In particular, the text suggested in the aforementioned message was:
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.
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.
See above paragraph. pr -- Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf