On 12/7/11 11:39 AM, "Michael Richardson" <mcr(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca> wrote:
"Benson" == Benson Schliesser <bschlies(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> writes:
Benson> However, there is one essential point that I'd like to
Benson> clarify: We need a common standard for numbering CGN NAT444
Benson> deployments.
Benson> For NAT444 deployments of CGN, we are talking about a new
Benson> scope - the intermediate "CGN zone" network - that is
Benson> neither global or local. Within this scope, one cannot
Benson> expect end-to-end (global) address fidelity (because traffic
Benson> is NATted), nor can one expect forwarding to be confined to
Benson> a single organization (because it touches CPE etc).
Okay, while this address touches the CPE, it does not cross it.
In some cases, customers attach their Pcs directly to their Cable Modem
(w/o a router). So, you can't exclude Pcs in this discussion. They make
up a non-trivial percentage, and many don't support 240.x (My home Mac,
for instance, gives me an error about first quad out of range).
Benson> PS - I also support turning 240/4 into unicast, as others
Benson> have recommended. But this will not help in the immediate
Benson> future timeframe, for the currently deployed equipment,
Benson> which is driving the need for Shared CGN Space. It may be
Benson> complementary, but does not reduce the need for a /10
Benson> assignment.
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, and even in the cases where customers have
their own equipment, a lot of it will have no problem with 240.
That's not true on many cable networks. Subscribers bring their own
routers, and would be responsible for upgrading/replacing them. Too many
devices will not support 240, raising the risk of using this range to an
unacceptable level.
Also, as was pointed out in an earlier email in this thread, some backbone
routers neither accept nor forward 240/4 addresses.
If the IETF changed the status of 240/4 five years ago, this would
possibly be worth considering. Since it didn't, it's too late now.
Equipment in the field is not ready, and won't be ready fast enough for
this to be a practical proposal.
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! |
firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net
architect[
] mcr(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ottawa(_dot_)on(_dot_)ca
http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device
driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
then sign the petition.
_______________________________________________
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