On Dec 7, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
On 2011-12-06 22:06, Benson Schliesser wrote:
ISPs need to use addressing within this scope that does not cause
problems for their existing customers (and their customers' equipment). And
the event of an addressing conflict, operators (on both sides) need a common
reference to determine who is at "fault" - i.e. who is responsible for fixing
Are you suggesting that ISPs MUST use the proposed /10 for CGNs?
In principle, I probably would not object to this suggestion. But I think that
SHOULD is a better description of the requirement. (And I could be missing it,
but I can't find such language in e.g. RFC1918.)
That's... interesting. Maybe it could empower customers when an ISP is using
something else (e.g. squat space) for its CGN and it's causing issues...
Yes, I would hope so. As a BCP for numbering CGN NAT444 deployments, it would
provide a useful reference point.
Ietf mailing list