On 01/30/2012 15:03, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared CGN Space'
<draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14.txt> as a BCP
On its December 15, 2011 telechat, the IESG reviewed version 10 of this
document and requested various changes. These changes are reflected in
the draft version 14 and the IESG now solicits community input on the
changed text only.
As I (and many others) remain opposed to this entire concept I think
it's incredibly unfortunate that the IESG has decided to shift the topic
of conversation from "whether" this should happen to "how" it should
happen. But comments more to the point below ....
Please send substantive comments to the ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
mailing lists by 2012-02-16. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to
iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This document requests the allocation of an IPv4 /10 address block to
be used as Shared Address Space to accommodate the needs of Carrier
Grade Network Address Translation (CGN) devices. It is anticipated
that Service Providers will use this Shared Address Space to number
the interfaces that connect CGN devices to Customer Premise Equipment
(CPE).
Shared Address Space is distinct from RFC1918 private address space
because it is intended for use on Service Provider networks.
However, it may be used as RFC 1918 private address space in certain
circumstances. Details are provided in the text of this document.
As this document proposes the allocation of an additional special-use
IPv4 address block, it updates RFC 5735.
The following text captures the most salient change between version 10 and 14
of this document:
Shared Address Space is IPv4 address space designated for Service
Provider use with the purpose of facilitating CGN deployment. Also,
Shared Address Space can be used as additional [RFC1918] space
I think it's a feature that we're finally willing to admit that this new
block is going to be used as 1918 space. Given that previous requests
for new 1918 space have been (rightly) denied, I think this document
should describe why this request is better/more important than previous
requests, and what the bar will be for future requests for new 1918 space.
when
at least one of the following conditions is true:
o Shared Address Space is not also used on the Service Provider side
of the CPE.
o CPE routers behave correctly when using the same address block on
both the internal and external interfaces.
When I previously proposed this as *the* proper solution I was told that
it wasn't in any way practical. Now that we're apparently willing to
discuss it as *a* possible solution one wonders why a new block is
necessary at all.
Doug
--
It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf