In message
<20111207220317(_dot_)3530B18C09C(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu>,
Noel Chiappa write
s:
> From: Michael Richardson <mcr(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>
> The CGN space seems like a very good place to use 240.0/10.
> A single organization often controls and specifies all equipment which
> will use the address space
Not _exclusively_ 240/, though, because as has been pointed out numerous
times, for many contemplated CGN deployments, the CPE equipment connected
directly to the CGN-fronted fabric will be that already owned by the
customers, and with home customers, that may cover a very, very wide stretch
of manufacturers and models - i.e. whatever those customers already own. And
many of them won't support 240/.
As I already pointed out:
>> I suspect that CGNs are not, by and large, targetted to entirely new
>> customers ... as customer bases grow, some ISPs don't have enough
>> 'public' space to give one to each customer any more, so they want to
>> deploy CGN - and they need address space for the chunk of fabric
>> between the CGNs and the CPEs. In other words, its mostly _existing_
>> customers who are about to be CGN'd.
But as I previously pointed out in another message (too lazy to dig it up),
I do think we should have a chunk of 240/ space as _part_ of the CGN
allocation.
And it needs a seperate I-D which indicates how equipement can signal
that it supports 240.0/10. Returning such a address to equipment that
is not prepared to receive is a *very* bad idea.
Noel
_______________________________________________
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