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

Subject: Re: Consensus Call (Update): 
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request Date: Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 
12:30:05PM +1100 Quoting Mark Andrews (marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org):
> > Does anybody know of any evidence to the contrary?=20
> This is not a ISP/CUSTOMER problem.  This is a ISP/CUSTOMER/WORK problem.
>
> You have the ISP using 172.16/12
> You have the customer using 192.168/16 or 10/8
> You have WORK using 172.16/12
>
> Enterpises have choosen to use 172.16/12 for EXACTLY the same reasons
> you want ISP to use 172.16/12.  CPE equipment doesn't default to
> that range.  Both the enterprise and the ISP don't want to clash
> with the employee/customer.
I have 1918 space at home, that is used at work. My VPN works. It is
common knowledge that split-tunneling is detrimental to network security
since so many functions rely (properly or not) on the containment to be
close to perfect.
 
> In addition to all the RFC 1918 address are for *private* use.
> Allocating RFC 1918 address is customers not private use, so are
> you also planning to update RFC 1918 to permit this *new* use case.
No. To me, ultimately, "private" equals an instance of routing policy,
ie. AS number. The customer is using 1918 space in spite of not having
an AS number (if they have one, they probably got fries with that and
have a /24 from swampspace, case closed) and thus must adapt to the
provider routing scheme. It MIGHT work with NAT. But not more than that. 
 
-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
Was my SOY LOAF left out in th'RAIN?  It tastes REAL GOOD!!

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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