In message <20111206055756(_dot_)GD20780(_at_)besserwisser(_dot_)org>,
=?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nils
son writes:
Subject: Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-s=
pace-request) Date: Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 08:38:56AM +1100 Quoting Mark Andr=
ews (marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org):
=20
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.
Actually it isn't inherent. It's only if two of the parties involed
are forced to use the same address pools that renumbering is inherent.
Mark
--
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