From: Rémi_Denis-Courmont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] discussion of the ISP shared address idea
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:21:00 +0300
> One thing I am afraid of is, some applications do compute the scope of the
> address of the host they're running on. One well-known example is automatic
> 6to4 tunnel setup in some operating systems. By essentially extending the
> RFC1918 space, these applications will break.
True.
> The counter argument is of course, that these applications are already
> terminally broken due to widespread statefull firewalls, as well as public IP
> space behind NATs (!) today. I totally agree with that counter-argument.
Correct :-) I like this too.
> Nevertheless, unless/until someone writes a "Using IPv4 address scopes
> considered harmful" document, I am not very comfortable going forward with
> draft-shirasaki-isp-shared-addr.
Then, still I can not understand this logic actually.
If RFC or some authorative doument tells "here is the space for it" formally,
those application can use IPv4 address scopes to change their behavior, isn't
it ?
Or, if you do not like such action, please do not wait and
write such a document by yourself, do not let someone else do :-)
Or, very simply, just we should remember that there is some limitation on this
adress space.
So, in either way, there is no reason to stop our proposal by this discussion,
we think.
Of course, not just only this, there may exist some "cons" of this proposal.
Even in that case, please solve that problems directly, not by stopping this.
Please let me repeat what I talked in the sesssin again today.
If we can not define such a shared space, what ISPs will do is
going to RIR to get global IPv4 address space for the section
between CGN and CPE, independently. We're afraid of such a waste of usage.
=============
Best wishes,
Shin Miyakawa
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
