[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - IAB comment
On Jun 29, 2011, at 10:35 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Alain Durand <adurand at juniper.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 2011, at 9:53 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> 2. Regardless of the disposition of 2011-5, the vendors and protocol
>>> authors who made assumptions about NAT based on the assigned IP
>>> address are about to get an object lesson in respecting the corner
>> This logic is hard coded just about everywhere. Check your Windows
>> machine and see what it does based on which IP address it is
>> configured with.
> You'll have to elaborate on that, because while windows firewall makes
> assumptions about what it's allowed to do if it encounters an RFC1918
> address, it makes no assumptions I'm aware of about what it can do
> with an address that isn't. If anything, the ISP choosing to employ
> RFC1918 addresses would cause Windows to incorrectly configure a
> permissive firewall.
If [public address] then start 6to4
if [private address] then start teredo (if app ask for IPv6)
>> One could reverse your comment and say: ISP
>> who do not take this fact into account take the risk of generating
>> high volume of service call.
> They'll get the service calls from the five-percenters regardless. The
> difference is that with a non-RFC1918 address the support tech can
> solve the problem with $5 extra per month for a static IP address and
> -no- changes to the customer's computer.
I guess we differ of the actual value of this five-percenter.