Agreed!
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Donley [mailto:C(_dot_)Donley(_at_)cablelabs(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 3:14 PM
To: Ronald Bonica; IESG IESG; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request
Ron,
One point of clarification, in your *against* list, you include:
On 11/28/11 2:25 PM, "Ronald Bonica" <rbonica(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net> wrote:
- Some applications will break. These applications share the
characteristic of assuming that an interface is globally reachable if
it
is numbered by an non-RFC 1918 address. To date, the only application
that has been identified as breaking is 6to4, but others may be
identified in the future.
Since this address space is between the CPE router and CGN device, and
is
therefore not globally routable, the same application(s) (e.g. 6to4)
will
break if public or 'squat' space are used instead of shared CGN space.
Such applications rely on the home router detecting that there is
private,
non-globally routable space (i.e. RFC1918) on the WAN and disabling
such
an application. While that same detection code will always fail for
public address space and squat space since the exact range is not
defined,
there is the possibility of fixing the detection code in home routers
if
we do define shared CGN space for that purpose.
Chris
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf