ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2011-12-04 00:18:05

In message 
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)64(_dot_)1112032019010(_dot_)23680(_at_)shell4(_dot_)bayarea(_dot_)net>,
 "C. M. Heard
" writes:
I've followed the discussion, both on the OPSAWG list and on the 
IETF list, and I have to say that I agree with the comments below by 
Henning Schulzrinne and Bernard Aboba.

One question, though, that I wish to address to the authors of 
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request and perhaps others: why 
would not an allocation from 240/4 (the former Class E address 
space) work for CGN space?  I'm well aware that it would be very 
difficult to use this as ordinary IPv4 address space because of the 
long history of treating it as a "Martian" address range.  It seems 
to me, however, that this would NOT be an issue for CGN boxes -- 
those being new equipment, the software can be upgraded to treat 
this address range differently than it traditionally has been.  It 
would be more difficult for CPE equipment to use -- especially stuff 
that's already deployed -- but that's actually an ADVANTAGE since 
such devices are not supposed to use CGN space.  And an allocation 
from 240/4 would not use up scarce global IPv4 space, which is one 
of the main objections I've been hearing to this allocation.

The CGN boxes are new.  The customer boxes which are being allocated
the addresses are old.   Lots of these boxes will not work with a
240/4 address.

So ... to the authors of draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request 
and other advocates of this allocation : please tell us whether an 
allocation from 240/4 would work for CGN space, and if not, why not.

To the IESG: please require the authors and/or other advocates of 
the propsed allocation to answer the above question before approving 
the allocation request.  If they agree that it will do, approve an 
allocation from that space.  If they provide a cogent argument as to 
why 240/4 won't work, then I advise (reluctantly) approving the 
allocation from the remaining IPv4 global space.

Thanks for listening.

//cmh

On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Bernard Aboba wrote:
The same thought occurred to me.  A very large enterprise will not 
utilize this /10 on a whim; they'd talk to their ISP first.  A 
consumer is unlikely to modify the settings of their home router, 
except if they download malware that does it for them :) and a 
consumer router vendor has such a low margin that the last thing 
they want is to utilize this forbidden /10, generating thousands 
of tech support calls they can't afford to answer.


On Dec 3, 2011, at 20:54, "Henning Schulzrinne" 
<hgs(_at_)cs(_dot_)columbia(_dot_)edu> wrote
:
Almost all residential customers will use a standard home 
router; as long as that home router does not make the new space 
available to customers, it will not be used. Almost all 
residential users get their home NAT box either from the ISP 
(who obviously won't ship such a box) or from one of a handful 
of retail consumer equipment vendors, who won't suddenly switch 
from RFC 1918 addresses, either (because they don't want to get 
the support calls).

I don't think your consumer ISP will have much sympathy if you 
call them up and tell them that you decided to use 128.59.x.x 
internally, reconfigured the gateway and can no longer get to 
Columbia University.

This is an economics issue: If one big corporate customer with a 
too-creative sysadmin calls up after "finding" this new address 
space, this can be dealt with.  (Indeed, that large corporate 
customer probably has non-1918 outward-facing addresses to begin 
with and will keep them, so they are the least likely target of 
CGNs.) If 10,000 consumer customers call up because their 
Intertubes aren't working, the ISP has a problem.

Thus, I'm having a hard time believing in the theory that the 
new space will be immediately appropriated for consumer ISPs. By 
whom, exactly, and on what scale and with what motivation?

Henning

On Dec 3, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:

From: Doug Barton <dougb(_at_)dougbarton(_dot_)us>

This argument has been raised before, but IMO the value is exactly
zero. The fact that you have a finger to wag at someone doesn't make
the costs of dealing with the conflict any smaller.

Perhaps. But I don't know the ISPs' business as well as they do. So I'd 
like
to hear their views on this point. (They may well have considered this p
oint
before deciding to ask for CGN space, and decided the space was still en
ough
use to be worth it.)

   Noel
_______________________________________________
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
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>