[arin-ppml] [Fwd: Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension]

[Owen DeLong]

RFC-1918 is not an option because it overlaps space in use by the end
users for their local area networks. It may not invalidate their use, but, it
does make it impracticable from a service provider perspective. Definitely
much better to look for an un-advertised range and squat there from a
pragmatic perspective.

This is explained if you read the proposal in its entirety.

Owen

On Feb 21, 2011, at 4:58 PM, Joel Jaeggli 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.
> 
> joel
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.