ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2011-12-05 11:07:51
On 12/5/11 08:37 , C. M. Heard wrote:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Randy Bush wrote:
The assumption in my question is that if the legacy (broken?) gear in
question all uses 10/8 *and* we publish a document that declares a
particular (presently unused by said gear) block of 1918 address space
is henceforth off limits to use in equipment that can't translate when
addresses are identical on the outside and the inside, then the use of
that 1918 address space might be "safe" for CGNs to use.

might require a cpe change.  about the same change as for the cpe to
recognize new/10 as non-public.

Maybe I'm missing something, but why would CPE need to recognize a 
new /10 CGN block as non-public?  Isn't the whole idea to leave the 
CPE unchanged and get the CGN boxes (and the rest of the core 
network infrastructure) to recognize the /10 CGN block as 
non-routeable?

Existing cpe supporting some applications treat public space differently
than private. e.g. in the context of 6to4, upnp igd, dynamic dns
registration and so on.

//cmh
_______________________________________________
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

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