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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 29, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

> 
> On Jun 29, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jun 29, 2011, at 7:02 AM, Alain Durand 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.
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> - Alain.
>> 
>> But the only place it will matter in these cases is the home gateways.
> 
> Actually it exists anywhere a home pc is directly connected to the cable modem, like my grandfathers house for example...
> 
> And, the logic exists in home gateways, that you can buy at frys, they say linksys on them, and and d-link and so forth.
> 

Any place NAT444 gets implemented with non-1918 addresses (which I think is likely to be the vast majority of NAT444
deployments), this assumption will break. Allocating this /10 won't change that fact, it will just reduce the total number
of addresses allocated for that purpose _AND_ allow firmware updates to address that breakage if the CPE/OS vendors
choose to do so.

Owen