[arin-ppml] [Fwd: Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension]
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com> wrote:
> The following statement from 2011-5 is incorrect or at a minimum chooses
> to deliberately rule out one option.
>> Service providers are currently presented with three options for
>> obtaining sufficient IPv4 address space for NAT444/IPv4 extension
>> deployments: (1) Request allocations under the NRPM; (2) share address
>> space with other providers (this proposal); or (3) use address space
>> allocated to another entity (i.e. ‘squat’). Of the three options,
>> option 2 (this proposal) is preferable, as it will minimize the number
>> of addresses used for IPv4 extension deployments while preserving the
>> authority of IANA and RIRs.
> Which is use RFC 1918 space. The fact that there are conflicts with
> addresses used in gateways in no way invalidates the suitability of
> private scope ip addresses for use in a private scope. Creating new
> private scope ranges which gateways do not treat as such has it's own
> liabilities and at a minimum that needs to be acknowledged and balanced
> against threat of collisions.
The sentence which preceded your quote addressed your issue:
"A recent study showed that there is no part of RFC1918 space which
would not overlap with some IPv4 gateways, and therefore to prevent
address conflicts, new address space is needed."
The three options apply to solutions which prevent address conflicts:
RIR allocations, the ISP-shared address space in this proposal and
squatting space unlikely to become routed on the public Internet (e.g.
space used by the US DoD SIPR and JWICS networks).
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004