In message <30683(_dot_)1322848760(_at_)marajade(_dot_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>,
Michael Richardson writes:
> Ted, your response does not address what I said at all. Not
> one bit. Let's assume that *every* enterprise used every
> last address of 172.16/12 (and, for that matter ever bit of
> 1918 space). That's irrelevant and still does not address my
> question. The question is whether these addresses are used
> BY EQUIPMENT THAT CAN'T NAT TO IDENTICAL ADDRESSES ON THE
> EXTERIOR INTERFACE. I am happy to accept an answer of, "Yes,
> all 1918 address space is used by such equipment", but
> nobody, including you, has actually said that.
one reason enterprises use 172.16/12 for stuff is because that way,
when their VPNs come up with people's residents, they do not immediately
conflict with the LAN at the home/coffee shop, etc.
And, there is a further consideration: this space only has to be useable
to for CGNs, for ISPs that have new customers that they want to hook up
via IPv4. Most of these ISPs already provide a home gateway (often
integrated with the DSL model or cable modem), and it only has to work
with that brand!
So I favour 172.16/12 or 224/10.
So you don't think existing customers will be moved behind CGN's?
This has to work for ALL customers (new and old) with equipment
that is 10+ years old. We are talking about billions of machines
224/10 could be made to work with new equipement provided there was
also signaling that the equipment supported it. That doesn't help
ISP that have new customers with old equipment and no addresses.
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
Ietf mailing list