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

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 25, 2011, at 10:02 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:

> 
> 
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 2011, at 8:52 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>> 
>>   
>>> 
>> You're requiring changes to both the CPE and the provisioning system that are impractical in the circumstance.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
>>   
> 
> The only changes required are on the DHCP server. DHCP clients will continue to request leases all on their own. End users will continue to reboot CPE's all on their own.
> 
> And this is only one option of many, a number of which can be employed in tandem.
> 
> Joe

You've made the assertion that the DHCP client will reject a lease for an address that it cannot install in
its routing table due to conflict with the LAN segment. I am arguing that would be a change to the
behavior of most CPE.

Yes, you can make the argument that CPE that doesn't behave that way is broken. Guess what,
most CPE is arguably broken in at least one fundamental way. That's what happens when you
buy routers for $30.

Owen