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

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:27 PM, George Bonser <gbonser at seven.com> wrote:
> I am neutral on this one.  The argument I see is that once that /10 is
> set aside for that purpose, you have no control that it is actually used
> for that purpose.  It will become de facto 1918 space and people will
> use it in all sorts of places and you run into exactly the problem this
> /10 was meant to solve (resolving collisions between customer 1918
> domains) when you start running into customer nets numbered in this /10
> or nets in regions outside ARIN numbered in this range.

Hi George,

Such an argument would be red herring (logical fallacy). I can claim
128.0.0.0/8 for my own as well. When I have trouble connecting to
Internet hosts which overlap this range, it's nobody's fault but my
own.

RFC1918 space is valid within an administrative domain. Using RFC1918
space for carrier NAT requires the ISP to stretch his use of RFC1918
beyond his borders into the customer's administrative domain. The
customer has a well founded expectation that will not happen -- that
the customer may use any RFC1918 space he wants without conflict with
his ISP.

Such is not the case if the customer claims a range of addresses which
have not been designated for his use. This has ever been the case and
it has been resolved by renumbering and various hacks when it (rarely)
crops up.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004