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

Subject: Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request Date: 
Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 12:28:56AM -0500 Quoting John C Klensin 
(john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com):

        (John, this is more of a general rant than a reply directly 
         to you. Please accept apologies for the kidnapping..) 
 
> If you advise using some piece of the 1918 space, you can only
> say "We aren't aware of anyone using this space under so-and-so
> circumstances" and not "We can prove that no one is using that
> space".
We can also say "This space is quite possibly used on the inside
of customer-managed devices and thus might create routing system
confusion. As with all use of non-unique address space, the responsibility
falls on the communicating parties to coordinate their address block
utilisation so as to avoid damaging amounts of ambiguity."

I did 1918 coordination in joint venture networks 12 years ago, and felt
the pain. If I did, then,  being the wet-behind-the-ears can-do optimist
that I was, why is it that nobody more sane in the industry realised it?

I find it repulsive to excessively pamper the late-comers to something
that we've KNOWN was going to happen for 15 years. 

draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request should be rewritten to offer,
say, 172.28/16, as "Mostly used between CPE and CGN" and we all should
move on to deploying IPv6 and get the ops warts out of it.
 

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
... the MYSTERIANS are in here with my CORDUROY SOAP DISH!!

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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