On 2/9/12 10:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
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.
As an AD who is now comfortable with going forward with the document, I
do want to point out that the IESG as a whole has *not* come to
consensus on this document. There are still not the required number of
"Yes" or "No objection" ballots for the document to move forward. So I
don't think it's accurate to say that the IESG is only deciding "how" it
should happen.
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.
I expect there will be clarifications as per the earlier messages in
this thread: This is *not* to be used as additional 1918 space. (See my
message of 2/1/12 4:33 PM -0600. ) 1918 space is guaranteed to be
private, and devices have been built that have made the assumption that
the space is private and they will not see it on a network that is not
within its administrative control. This proposed space is most assuredly
not that. It's shared and therefore has additional constraints on use
that 1918 space does not. It is certainly *similar* to 1918 space in
that it is not globally routeable, but it is not 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.
I hope it does, and if it is not sufficient, I expect text will be
accepted by the authors. In particular, the text suggested in the
aforementioned message was:
Shared Address Space is similar to [RFC1918] private address space in
that it is not global routeable address space and can be used by
multiple pieces of equipment. However, Shared Address Space has
limitations in its use that the current [RFC1918] private address
space does not have. In particular, Shared Address Space can only be
used on routing equipment that is able to do address translation
across router interfaces when the addresses are identical on two
different 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.
See above paragraph.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf