[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - IAB comment
On 11-06-29 6:06 PM, "Alain Durand" <adurand at juniper.net> wrote:
>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.
Very interesting and opinionated discussion.
>From an operator's point of view...
We have tested GUA space and RFC1918 in CGN trials. Results - RFC1918 [no
go], GUA [manageable].
We have found issues in our network attempting to run RFC1918 addresses in
the CGN zone. These reasons may be the same as others, or slightly
Either way, we need to use GUA space... So the community is either going
to make this workable with the /10, or will subject the real Internet
Customers to not just the pain of NAT444, but NAT444 with all kinds of
dissimilar ways of finding GUA space (squatting etc). Again, I don't like
CGN, but my dislike for a technology is not a determining factor as to
whether I need to use it.
I do appreciate the concerns of some on the list about trying to contain
brokenness, but the fact remains that operators have said (for many
reasons) that GUA space will be needed.
Yes, there are some know issues (like 6to4), but these issues will be
anticipated and managed by the Operators.
I think continuing to argue against the 2011-5 /10 proposal at this point
is just making the inevitable more difficult for operators and therefore
real Internet Customers.
> - Alain.
>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:
>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.