Re: Consensus Call (Update): draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

Subject: Re: Consensus Call (Update): 
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request Date: Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 
08:17:47PM -0700 Quoting Chris Donley (C(_dot_)Donley(_at_)cablelabs(_dot_)com):
> We're requesting a /10, not a /12 or /15 (devices attached to one CGN
> might use the whole /15).  Such an allocation would be too small for a
> regional CGN deployment at a larger ISP, and would likely result in
> double-CGN.  Shared CGN Space really needs to be a /10.
The space is going to be reused several times anyway, and NAT (be it
carrier, enterprise or SOHO) breaks pretty badly when session space
is exhausted. It does not make sense to have much more than a, say,
/16 behind each. (CGN is just NAT in a NEBS certified enclosure with an
expensive support contract; the basic b0rkenedness remains.)
 
> Second, many ISPs do not control customer home network addressing
> decisions.  It is not feasible to tell a customer to renumber, especially
> when the customer is legitimately using RFC1918 space in accordance with
> the RFC.  
As has been restated several times, if you use RFC1918, be prepared to
renumber. Goes for everyone, including customers.

> Unfortunately, your proposal doesn't actually solve the problem we're
> facing.
We are, by request, not discussing solutions (ie. larger address space)
but kludges. draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request is polishing
manure, not designing solutions.

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
Hmmm ... A hash-singer and a cross-eyed guy were SLEEPING on a deserted
island, when ...

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf