[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension

George Bonser gbonser at seven.com
Sat Jan 22 18:00:43 EST 2011

> >
> I have no doubt, but the concern and what is trying to be avoided is
> collisions with RFC-1918 which has already been deployed in CPEs. A
> vendor would be idiotic to utilize this /10 in their product.
> jack

I am not talking about a CPE vendor. I am talking about Joe's Fish Farm
opening up a new office someplace.  They note that they already use most
of 10/8 in their existing infrastructure and don't have enough address
space to do what they want at the new office so they number their
internal office in this space.

10 years down the road, Joe's Fish Farm wants to establish a VPN with
Bob's Fish Feed and low and behold, Bob's Fish Feed is using exactly the
same address space internally that the Fish Farm is.

That is one reason why I would favor use of the old Class E space for
this. Vendors of CPE and NAT devices could hack the stack to allow this
space but end user workstations would be unable to use it.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list