On Nov 28, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
...
Because the October 10 last call elicited so little response, and because
many community members have privately expressed strong opinions regarding
this draft, I will summarize outstanding issues below. The following are
arguments *against* draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request:
- Allocation of a special-use /10 does not hasten the deployment of IPv6. It
only extends the life of the IPv4 network.
Since the detractors of this draft admit that operators will use another
address space anyway if they're not given a /10, then the above argument is
false. No matter what, CGNs will be deployed for IPv4 life-support.
- If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will be used as additional RFC 1918
address space, despite a specific prohibition against such use stated by the
draft.
So what?? We write all kinds of RFCs with MUST NOTs in them that people ignore
- but we can't stop writing RFCs just because that sometimes happens. The best
we can do is write the MUST NOT, explain exactly why it's a MUST NOT, and then
hope people listen. (and BTW, the current draft does not sufficiently explain
why not, imho)
- If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will encourage others to request
still more special-use address space.
So what?? They can request all they want, whether we publish this RFC or not.
We'll be able to say "no" to them if their request falls in the same class as
this one, or we'll be able to say "yes" to them if there's some technical merit
to what they want. That's how things work, no?
- 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 the detractors of this draft admit that operators will use another
address space anyway if they're not given a /10, then the above argument is
false. There will be some address space used that is not publicly reachable
and is not in the RFC1918 space, so these applications will break *anyway*.
The question is if 6to4 and other use-cases would like to know what that
address is going to be so they can fix themselves to handle the new address, or
whether we keep them broken.
-hadriel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf