Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

    > Ted, your response does not address what I said at all. Not
    > one bit. Let's assume that *every* enterprise used every
    > last address of 172.16/12 (and, for that matter ever bit of
    > 1918 space). That's irrelevant and still does not address my
    > question. The question is whether these addresses are used
    > BY EQUIPMENT THAT CAN'T NAT TO IDENTICAL ADDRESSES ON THE
    > EXTERIOR INTERFACE. I am happy to accept an answer of, "Yes,
    > all 1918 address space is used by such equipment", but
    > nobody, including you, has actually said that.

one reason enterprises use 172.16/12 for stuff is because that way,
when their VPNs come up with people's residents, they do not immediately
conflict with the LAN at the home/coffee shop, etc.

And, there is a further consideration: this space only has to be useable
to for CGNs, for ISPs that have new customers that they want to hook up
via IPv4.  Most of these ISPs already provide a home gateway (often
integrated with the DSL model or cable modem), and it only has to work
with that brand!

So I favour 172.16/12 or 224/10.

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ottawa(_dot_)on(_dot_)ca 
http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
                       then sign the petition.

pgpYq5aANC2RS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf