On 12/5/11 08:37 , C. M. Heard wrote: > On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Randy Bush wrote: >>> The assumption in my question is that if the legacy (broken?) gear in >>> question all uses 10/8 *and* we publish a document that declares a >>> particular (presently unused by said gear) block of 1918 address space >>> is henceforth off limits to use in equipment that can't translate when >>> addresses are identical on the outside and the inside, then the use of >>> that 1918 address space might be "safe" for CGNs to use. >> >> might require a cpe change. about the same change as for the cpe to >> recognize new/10 as non-public. > > Maybe I'm missing something, but why would CPE need to recognize a > new /10 CGN block as non-public? Isn't the whole idea to leave the > CPE unchanged and get the CGN boxes (and the rest of the core > network infrastructure) to recognize the /10 CGN block as > non-routeable?
Existing cpe supporting some applications treat public space differently than private. e.g. in the context of 6to4, upnp igd, dynamic dns registration and so on. > //cmh > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
