On Nov 30, 2011, at 9:41 PM 11/30/11, Victor Kuarsingh wrote:
Ralph,
Please note the following report:
WIDE Technical-Report in 2010 (DOC wide-tr-kato-as112-rep-01.pdf)
Thanks for the reference. Do you have an easy pointer to retrieve the doc? I'm
curious about how the data was gathered and what conclusions are drawn.
- Ralph
Report suggested that all three RFC1918 blocks are well utilized.
Regards,
Victor K
On 11-11-30 9:19 PM, "Ralph Droms" <rdroms(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Nov 30, 2011, at 9:14 PM 11/30/11, Pete Resnick wrote:
Daryl,
The problem described in the draft is that CPEs use 1918 space *and
that many of them can't deal with the fact that there might be addresses
on the outside interface that are the same as on the inside interface*.
The claim was made by Randy, among others, that only 192.168/16 space
was used by such unintelligent CPEs. I believe I have seen the claim
that 10/8 space is also used in unintelligent equipment that can't deal
with identical addresses inside and outside.
Another suggestion was the use of 10.64.0.0/10, with the argument that
some devices may use 10.0.0.0 but those devices tend to start numbering
with 10.0.0.0/24 or 10.0.1.0/24 and none would use addresses in
10.64.0.0/10.
Is there evidence that there are deployments today of devices that use
addresses in 10.64.0.0/10?
- Ralph
Is there reason to believe that within the ISP network / back-office
etc. that there is equipment that can't deal with 17.16/12 space being
on both the inside and outside? I haven't seen anyone make that specific
claim.
If we know that 172.16/12 used both inside and outside will break a
significant amount of sites that CGNs will be used with, we can ignore
this argument. But if not, then let's rewrite the document to say that
CGNs should use 172.16/12 and that any device that wants to use
172.16/12 needs the ability to deal with identical addresses on the
inside and the outside interface. Of course, all equipment should have
always been able to deal with identical addresses inside and outside for
all 1918 addresses anyway. But if we think the impact of using 172.16/12
for this purpose will cause minimal harm, then there's no compelling
reason to allocate new space for this purpose.
pr
On 11/30/11 3:04 PM, Daryl Tanner wrote:
It's not just about the CPE devices and customer LANs.
Address conflicts are also going to happen within the ISP network /
back-office etc. 172.16.0.0/12 is used there.
Daryl
On 30 November 2011 20:52, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 2011-12-01 09:28, Chris Grundemann wrote:
...
It is more conservative to share a common pool.
It suddenly occurs to me that I don't recall any serious analysis
of using 172.16.0.0/12 for this. It is a large chunk of space
(a million addresses) and as far as I know it is not used by default
in any common CPE devices, which tend to use the other RFC 1918 blocks.
I realise that ISPs with more than a million customers would have to
re-use this space, whereas a /10 would only bring this problem above 4M
customers, but at that scale there would be multiple CGN monsters
anyway.
Sorry to bring this up on the eve of the telechat.
--
Pete Resnick
<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf