[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - IAB comment
On Jun 29, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> This is why going with RFC1918 is the safest choice. Dealing with inside/outside address range conflict is, IMHO, much easier than dealing with the brokeness induced here.
> Your opinion is not shared by the majority of network operators. I would regard the choice as more of a business decision than one that ARIN or the IETF should inflict upon them.
My concern is that the technical breakage caused by extending RFC1918 have been seriously underestimated by the proponents of 2011-5.
An ISP making the business decision to use an overlapping part of its address space is one thing, ARIN augmenting RFC1918 in another.