[arin-ppml] [Fwd: Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension]

[Joel Jaeggli]

On 2/21/11 5:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> RFC-1918 is not an option because it overlaps space in use by the end
> users for their local area networks.

So you say, I say you have the choice between two support problems, one
which you don't have presently but many isps the wold over contend with
every day.

> It may not invalidate their use, but, it
> does make it impracticable from a service provider perspective. 

This is an opinion, not a fact. It is a fact that collisions between the
external address assigned and the internal addresses utilized will
render some percentage of cpe inoperable. By some accounts the amount of
cpe that both have that problem, and will be numbered in such a fashion
thereby forming the union that causes that problem is a fraction of the
total population.

> Definitely
> much better to look for an un-advertised range and squat there from a
> pragmatic perspective.

Not if an application, be it reliant on upnp, 6to4 or some other
mechanism for leveraging the external address assumes the external
address on the cpe is global in scope.

The assumption that an unadvertised range will in fact remain so, has
been repeatedly and routinely proven to be false and ISPs that have done
that do so at their peril...

> This is explained if you read the proposal in its entirety.

I have, I also have read previous iterations of the proposal, both here,
in the APNIC region and in internet draft form at the IETF.

As a network operator I opposed the 127, not because because I believe
that there isn't a problem but because I believe that the proposed cure
is worse than the disease...

If you must hand out private scope addresses do so. triage  small
percentage of cpe that can't reach your gateways and move on.

At a minimum the proposal should acknowledge that we're trading one kind
of breakage (private scope v4 address) for another (presumed to be
public scope v4 address but actually private) and that alternative 4 is
in fact the thing that you don't want to do which is just use rfc 1918
and deal with those consequnces which are well understood...

> Owen
> 
> On Feb 21, 2011, at 4:58 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> 
>> The following statement from 2011-5 is incorrect or at a minimum chooses
>> to deliberately rule out one option.
>>
>>> Service providers are currently presented with three options for
>>> obtaining sufficient IPv4 address space for NAT444/IPv4 extension
>>> deployments: (1) Request allocations under the NRPM; (2) share address
>>> space with other providers (this proposal); or (3) use address space
>>> allocated to another entity (i.e. ‘squat’).  Of the three options,
>>> option 2 (this proposal) is preferable, as it will minimize the number
>>> of addresses used for IPv4 extension deployments while preserving the
>>> authority of IANA and RIRs.
>>
>> Which is use RFC 1918 space. The fact that there are conflicts with
>> addresses used in gateways in no way invalidates the suitability of
>> private scope ip addresses for use in a private scope. Creating new
>> private scope ranges which gateways do not treat as such has it's own
>> liabilities and at a minimum that needs to be acknowledged and balanced
>> against threat of collisions.
>>
>> joel
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> 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:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
>