On 12/02/2011 09:50, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Doug Barton <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> On 12/01/2011 22:07, Ted Hardie wrote:
> > No, I think that premise is mis-stated. Premise 1: There exists
> > equipment that can't handle identical addresses on the interior and
> > exterior interface. Premise 2: it may be deployed now or in the
> future
> > for customers using any part of the RFC 1918 allocation *because those
> > using the RFC 1918 allocations had no prior warning that this might
> > create a collision*. Conclusion: You cannot avoid identical
> addresses
> > on the interior and exterior interface by using any part of the
> RFC 1918
> > allocation.
>
> But doesn't that same line of reasoning apply to any new allocation
> that's made for this purpose? You can fix the problem for today, but you
> can't fix it for the future because you can't prohibit customers from
> using the new allocation on the inside of their network.
>
>
> If a customer uses a CGN-specific allocation on the inside of their
> network as if it were RFC 1918 space, then, yes, they will have trouble
> if they ever use a provider that uses a CGN.
Thanks. So my point is, this proposed allocation doesn't solve anything,
it just kicks the can down the road a while. That's not enough benefit
to justify the cost.
> At the very least, though,
> they have collaborated in their need to renumber by ignoring the quite
> plain warnings that this is a bad idea. They did not have that warning
> about using an allocation from RFC 1918 space.
>
>
>
> Therefore, making the allocation is a pointless waste of resources that
> can be better utilized elsewhere.
>
> Step 1: Determine the most popular inside prefixes for CPEs
> Step 2: Use the least popular RFC 1918 prefix for the CGN network
> Step 3: If your customer has somehow chosen the same prefix, tell them
> they can't do that.
>
> And yes, I realize that Step 3 is going to be incredibly unpopular for
> the ISPs, but they created the problem, so they should have to live with
> the results.
>
>
> It's not going to be unpopular with ISPs, it will be unpopular with
> *customers*.
... which is why it'll be unpopular with the ISPs. See what I did there? :)
> To retain those customers, the ISPs will simply ignore the
> RFC and use some other space. At least, that's my prediction.
Works for me.
Doug
--
"We could put the whole Internet into a book."
"Too practical."
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
