On 2/11/12 04:52 , Ralph Droms wrote: > But, what we've been told by operators in the discussion about this > draft is that "very unlikely" is not "sufficiently unlikely", and > that no /10 within the set of RFC 1918 addresses makes the > probability of a collision sufficiently unlikely. You may disagree > with that claim, but I think we have to respect it. > Given a provisioning system with two pools of address for a given set of customers, it can likely be demonstrated that no deployed consumer cpe is internally numbered in both of them. Managing breakage due to an address collision with existing cpe is one kind of support cost. Managing breakage due to a new formerly non-private scope address range now being employed is another support cost. It's entirely possible that reasonable people with experience operating consumer facing networks can disagree on which cost is more onerous. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf