[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension
spiffnolee at yahoo.com
Thu Jan 20 13:51:25 EST 2011
> For the use proposed, /10 is not enough space.
A /10 is probably enough for the inside of any single Large-Scale NAT.
It's actually a pretty large failure domain.
> It is also a use which is not region
> specific, and wasteful for each region to specify their own space for such
ISPs in the ARIN region would use this space. I don't care if ISPs outside the
ARIN region also use it, since I'll never see the routes.
It would be wasteful if every ISP was allocated a prefix to use for the inside
of their NAT. If would also be wasteful for each RIR to allocate a prefix for
the same use.
> > Until such customers replace their Home Gateways and all IPv4-only
> > devices with IPv6-capable devices, Service Providers will be required to
> > continue to offer IPv4 services through the use of an IPv4 address
> > sharing technology such as NAT444. A recent study showed that there is
> > no part of RFC1918 space which would not overlap with some IPv4
> > gateways, and therefore to prevent address conflicts, new address space
> > is needed.
> Overlap with home gateway addressing is not a concern of ARIN. RFC1918
> could be utilized and home gateways reconfigured if necessary.
How would that work? Hundreds of millions of home gateways are already
deployed; how do they get reconfigured?
> It is wasteful
> to allow a small percentage of possible conflicts to warrant additional space.
There's a survey at http://member.wide.ad.jp/tr/wide-tr-kato-as112-rep-01.pdf
showing conflicts. It's not small.
> The larger conflict of RFC1918 space is cpe management addressing which
> used RFC1918, in which case, a very large cable company just ran out and
> had to request addressing to support this case. A /10 wouldn't come close to
> supporting that many subscribers.
If LSNs were deployed regionally, and OSS were inside the LSN scope, you
could reuse pretty well.
Though I have some misgivings about the general idea, and though I will go
to great lengths to avoid the use of Large Scale NAT, if it is required, then
unique address space will be required for it. Therefore, I support this
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML