On 2/11/12 04:52 , Ralph Droms wrote:
But, what we've been told by operators in the discussion about this
draft is that "very unlikely" is not "sufficiently unlikely", and
that no /10 within the set of RFC 1918 addresses makes the
probability of a collision sufficiently unlikely. You may disagree
with that claim, but I think we have to respect it.
Given a provisioning system with two pools of address for a given set
of customers, it can likely be demonstrated that no deployed consumer
cpe is internally numbered in both of them.
Managing breakage due to an address collision with existing cpe is one
kind of support cost. Managing breakage due to a new formerly
non-private scope address range now being employed is another support cost.
It's entirely possible that reasonable people with experience operating
consumer facing networks can disagree on which cost is more onerous.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf