First of all, thank you very much Gregory and Brian for your good clarifications.
From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Int-area] discussion of the ISP shared address idea Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:48:41 +1200 > A NAT that doesn't treat the two address contexts as logically > disjoint is broken IMHO. Of course, 10.0.0.12B (like every > address in Context B) is totally inaccessible from Context A. > But the Context B side of the CPE NAT will use 10.0.0.12B > as its default router. Yep. That's what I'd like to say exactly. > It's certainly horrible, but when you run out of addresses, > what else can you expect? Yes, this is certainly horrible. That's also what I'd like to repeat too. So, That's the reason why we should have another address space to be shared by ISPs which are going to introduce CGN in their networks to ease the pain. Otherwise, every ISP may be going to RIR to get another space for each for this purpose (simply because they can not remove global Pv4 assignment off from exisiting customers), and IPv4 is running out very quickly in this case. As one of strong IPv6 promotors on the Earth, maybe I should push this way to complete IPv4 address assignment as soon as possible, but, still we need to gain some period to let vendors complete CGN implementation. Best regards, Shin Miyakawa _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
