[ppml] Arguments against Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing

[Durand, Alain]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Paul Vixie
>
> > > In such cases, is there a reason you cannot use RFC 1918 for the 
> > > legacy devices?
> > 
> > We are using it, but RFC1918 space is too small for our needs.
> 
> how much private IPv4 address space would be enough?

It depends on the size of the network. In our case, if we had not
been planning for IPv6, I would say probably a /4 would be enough...

240/4 would have been a candidate if it had been usable,
unfortunately it is not and will not be in the foreseeable future,
so I do not even consider it as an option.

Of course, all this assumes that none of those infrastructure piece
talk to any other infrastructure piece of another operator,
which is not always the case (e.g. VoIP peerings), which lead to
yet another reason to use global addresses.

    - Alain.