On 12/3/2011 4:49 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Doug Barton <dougb(_at_)dougbarton(_dot_)us>
> Doing the allocation will postpone the pain, until such time as those
> folks that we keep hearing have exhausted all of 1918 internally catch
> on, and then start using this block as 1918 space.
But if any particular site uses this space for either i) 1918-type uses, or
ii) the intended use, do we care? As long as having some sites use it for
1918 purposes doesn't harm the ability of _other_ sites to use it for the
purposes for which it is intended, I don't see the harm (although maybe I'm
missing something).
Yes, you're missing something. :)
The argument from the proponents goes something like this (refined way
down, ignoring subtleties, etc.):
"We cannot use 1918 for CGN because some customers use it internally,
and they have CPEs that break if the same block is used on both sides.
Therefore, we need a new, !1918 block for our side of the CGN."
The problem with that argument is that there is nothing to stop
customers from using the new block internally (and everyone involved so
far has recognized that they inevitably will do this). Therefore the
stated purpose of allocating the block is not going to be effective.
Or, put another way, because the pain of dealing with customers who are
using your CGN block internally is going to exist anyway, why not just
use the least popular 1918 block(s) for this purpose and deal with the
conflicts when they arise?
Doug (but you're in good company)
--
"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