If a customer uses a CGN-specific allocation on the inside of their
network as if it were RFC 1918 space, then, yes, they will have trouble
if they ever use a provider that uses a CGN.
Thanks. So my point is, this proposed allocation doesn't solve anything,
it just kicks the can down the road a while. That's not enough benefit
to justify the cost.
This particular argument has been bothering me for a while.
We write standards. Our RFCs that specify protocols or best current practices
contain statements along the lines of MUST or MUST NOT (and yes other documents
also may use this terminology). People who implement or who deploy products
could at least in principle ignore some of these statements, and implement or
deploy equipment in ways that violate the MUST and MUST NOT statements in our
documents. When they do this, bad things may happen.
This is not a valid reason for us to stop writing standards, nor to stop
putting MUST statements in our standards.
Ross
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf