Subject: Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request Date:
Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 12:28:56AM -0500 Quoting John C Klensin
(John, this is more of a general rant than a reply directly
to you. Please accept apologies for the kidnapping..)
If you advise using some piece of the 1918 space, you can only
say "We aren't aware of anyone using this space under so-and-so
circumstances" and not "We can prove that no one is using that
We can also say "This space is quite possibly used on the inside
of customer-managed devices and thus might create routing system
confusion. As with all use of non-unique address space, the responsibility
falls on the communicating parties to coordinate their address block
utilisation so as to avoid damaging amounts of ambiguity."
I did 1918 coordination in joint venture networks 12 years ago, and felt
the pain. If I did, then, being the wet-behind-the-ears can-do optimist
that I was, why is it that nobody more sane in the industry realised it?
I find it repulsive to excessively pamper the late-comers to something
that we've KNOWN was going to happen for 15 years.
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request should be rewritten to offer,
say, 172.28/16, as "Mostly used between CPE and CGN" and we all should
move on to deploying IPv6 and get the ops warts out of it.
Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
... the MYSTERIANS are in here with my CORDUROY SOAP DISH!!
Description: Digital signature
Ietf mailing list