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

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Alain Durand <adurand at juniper.net> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2011, at 9:53 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> 2. Regardless of the disposition of 2011-5, the vendors and protocol
>> authors who made assumptions about NAT based on the assigned IP
>> address are about to get an object lesson in respecting the corner
>> case.
>
> This logic is hard coded just about everywhere. Check your Windows
> machine and see what it does based on which IP address it is
> configured with.

Alain,

You'll have to elaborate on that, because while windows firewall makes
assumptions about what it's allowed to do if it encounters an RFC1918
address, it makes no assumptions I'm aware of about what it can do
with an address that isn't. If anything, the ISP choosing to employ
RFC1918 addresses would cause Windows to incorrectly configure a
permissive firewall.


> One could reverse your comment and say: ISP
> who do not take this fact into account take the risk of generating
> high volume of service call.

They'll get the service calls from the five-percenters regardless. The
difference is that with a non-RFC1918 address the support tech can
solve the problem with $5 extra per month for a static IP address and
-no- changes to the customer's computer.

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