On Dec 7, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Simon Perreault wrote: > On 2011-12-06 22:06, Benson Schliesser wrote: >> ISPs need to use addressing within this scope that does not cause >> (additional) >> problems for their existing customers (and their customers' equipment). And >> in >> the event of an addressing conflict, operators (on both sides) need a common >> reference to determine who is at "fault" - i.e. who is responsible for fixing >> the problem. > > Are you suggesting that ISPs MUST use the proposed /10 for CGNs?
In principle, I probably would not object to this suggestion. But I think that SHOULD is a better description of the requirement. (And I could be missing it, but I can't find such language in e.g. RFC1918.) > That's... interesting. Maybe it could empower customers when an ISP is using > something else (e.g. squat space) for its CGN and it's causing issues... Yes, I would hope so. As a BCP for numbering CGN NAT444 deployments, it would provide a useful reference point. Cheers, -Benson _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
