ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2011-12-08 04:45:05
Hi Ron

On 3 December 2011 22:06, Ronald Bonica <rbonica(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net> wrote:

Folks,

On Thursday, December 1, the IESG deferred its decision regarding
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request to the December 15 telechat. The
decision was deferred because:

- it is difficult. (We are choosing between the lesser of two evils.)
- a lively discussion on this mailing list has not yet converged

Several topic have become intertwined in the mailing list discussion,
making it difficult to gauge community consensus. Further discussion of the
following topics would help the IESG to gauge consensus:

- Is the reserved /10 required for the deployment of CGN?


The shared /10 is required for the deployment of NAT444. This ensures a
standardised, consistent way to identify CGN internal addressing,
irrespective of service provider. This also provides the lowest risk of
address collision with existing networks.

CGN is a generic term, and in some cases 1918 space can be used - for
example, where the CPE is an end-device (single host) that is not providing
any additional LAN connectivity, eg mobile devices.




- What is the effect of burning 4 million IPv4 addresses on the exhaustion
of IPv4?


The impact of using a single /10 for CGN/NAT444 is far less than each ISP
assigning their own dedicated block. Large ISPs would consume a /10 each
for this purpose.




- Can alternative /10s be used?


The alternatives (discussed) are:
1. RFC1918 space - I do not see that the inside addressing in NAT444 is
legitimate use for this space. It is defined as "Address allocation for
Private Internets", which ISP customer connectivity is not.

2. 240/4 - I agree that this block should be released for unicast use,
however for CGN/NAT444 it is not 'fit for purpose' for use with ALL
existing CPE and network hardware.

Perhaps a separate I-D is required to release the 240/4 address block for
future use, however this should not be confused with the immediate
requirement.

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