ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request)

2011-12-05 23:58:30
Subject: Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: 
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request) Date: Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 
08:38:56AM +1100 Quoting Mark Andrews (marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org):
 
Ask everyone everywhere that is using this block, in good faith,
for some purpose other than supporting addresses behind a CGN to
renumber out of this block of RFC 1918 addresss which is now being
re-purposed 16 years after it was allocated.

I do not understand why it is so hard to come to terms with the fact
that IF you have -- in whatever faith -- chosen to use non-unique address
space, you have been taking your chanches that sometime, in the future,
you WILL have to renumber to keep the illusion of quasi-uniqueness. This
goes for everybody. Customer, operator, middlebox or CPE vendor,
and my mother. This is inherent in all non-unique space. A new shared
allocation from the RIR pools or Class E will not change this fundamental
characteristic.  Therefore, 1918 space, being the prime example of
non-uniqueness, should be quite suited to populate the inside of a CGN.

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
Am I SHOPLIFTING?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>