On 02/10/2012 15:42, Pete Resnick wrote: > 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. I suppose that's some small comfort. >>> 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. > > I expect there will be clarifications as per the earlier messages in > this thread: This is *not* to be used as additional 1918 space. The following is not meant to be a snark (nor is anything else I've written on this topic, for that matter), but I think it's a huge problem that you think *saying* "Don't use this as 1918 space" is going to make any difference at all. >> 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, For my money, it does not. > 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. So if we're saying the same thing about CPEs capable of doing CGN needing to understand the same block(s) on the inside and outside, why is the new block necessary? 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