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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 29, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Alain Durand wrote:

> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jun 29, 2011, at 3:35 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> This is why going with RFC1918 is the safest choice. Dealing with inside/outside address range conflict is,  IMHO, much easier than dealing with the brokeness induced here.
> 

Your opinion is not shared by the majority of network operators. I would regard the choice as more of a business decision than one that ARIN or the IETF should inflict upon them.


Owen