[arin-ppml] [Fwd: Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension]
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [Fwd: Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address
He was positing that because VZW is able to maintain 40 parallel instances of 1918 space under their
control that it was the same problem as maintaining a CGN Intermediary address space that overlapped
the customer address spaces.
My statement wasn't FUD, it was taking his example to its logical conclusion when scaled to the
environment HE described. He is the one that came up with 100 million subscribers as a number for
the environment. He is the one that stated parallel instances of RFC-1918 were OK in the situation.
I merely pointed out the difference between what he was saying and what he was proposing as a viable
[WEG] I'm not going to debate what Joel meant on his behalf. However, I'll tell you what I
understood it to mean - that VZW has 100M customers, and they are already using 1918 as an inside
CGN pool, assumedly including devices that do their own NAT, therefore proving that at least in some
cases it is a perfectly viable application as an alternative to a dedicated shared address pool.
Your interpretation of that meaning that all 100M entities represented a NAT444 instance and
therefore an opportunity for conflicting address space is what I believed moved towards FUD.
Let me try to explain the problem you seem to be missing here...
[WEG] Yes, I'm not a moron, thanks.
We're not going to agree about this, so I think perhaps we should stop clogging the list with what
has become largely a 2-person debate.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6781 bytes
Desc: not available