On 12/01/2011 19:47, Pete Resnick wrote:
The current draft says that the reason 1918 space can't be used is that
equipment that deals in 1918 address space is hosed if 1918 addresses
are used on their external interface.
Let's assume that's true for a second (I haven't seen any evidence of
that). We all know that if the /10 is allocated that people are going to
use it for 1918 space. So, back to square 1.
Brian claimed that perhaps
172.16/12 space might not be used by that equipment. Robert claimed that
perhaps only 192.168 and 10.0.0.x addresses are used by that equipment.
So the question I posed was, "Does any of *that* equipment use 172.16/12
(or 10.x/16) space?" Nobody has said "yes".
And *I'm* still not claiming that the answer is "No." I simply don't
know. But I'm inclined to hear from anybody to indicate that there is
*any* evidence that the answer is "Yes". That would make me much more
comfortable in concluding that new specialized address space is the
better horn of this bull to throw ourselves on.
The lack of research on this point has been pointed out in the past, and
TMK has never been addressed.
Doug
--
"We could put the whole Internet into a book."
"Too practical."
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf