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

[George Bonser]

> 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.

Well, to some extent you are correct.  I mean, it certainly would be
one's own fault but this net would be quite unlike 128/8 in that one
would be pretty much guaranteed not to overlap with any host on the
Internet.  And to the extent to which it is the problem only of the end
network depends upon whether or not they are the only one a service
provider runs into using that space.   After about the 20th one or so, I
would guess it would become a giant pain in the service provider's hips,
too.

But if I am right, it will become obvious in a year or two.  I am not
opposed to this, but I will have to suppress an "I told you so" moment
when this becomes a pain in the hips being reported in NANOG every week.

Where a provider will run into this is provisioning a new customer whose
previous provider didn't use this space and is moving to a provider who
does use the space for their WAN addressing.  It will take a couple of
years to raise its ugly head and the way most networks operate in
reality "it isn't a problem until it is a problem".  It won't be a
problem for a couple of years down the road.  I'll keep an eye out for
the stories, though, when they start to appear.

I two years time people will be using every scrap of v4 they can find
and this /10 will end up being pressed into service in the most
unexpected ways.  I hope I am wrong.

George