At 08:02 11-02-2012, Noel Chiappa wrote:
In reality, the _only_ choice the IETF has is between:
- Deploy CGNAT with messy ad-hoc assigned addresses (squatting, whatever)
- Deploy CGNAT with an assigned address block
There is an IPR disclosure on file for RFC 6264 (Informative
reference). There is an IPR disclosure which may be related to one
of the services mentioned in Section 5.2 of the
draft. draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-05 discusses about common
requirements for Carrier Grade NATs. An IPR disclosure was filed.
The IPv4 address pool status is as follows:
IPv4 /8
RIR Pool 18
Reserved (IETF) 35
Unadvertised 53
Advertised 149
Research carried out in 2008 listed unofficial use of the following (IPv4) /8s:
1, 2, 5, 14, 23, 39, 42, 100, 101, 107, 175 and 176
All those IPv4 /8s are currently allocated to RIRs.
Is an IPv4 address block assignment necessary for
draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-05?
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf