not replying specific to this mail but to the tons that have arrived
lately, are there some confusion out there that it is the amount of
votes on ietf@ that make a do/do not on a draft? ... or just me
missunderstanding this?
anyway, great to see people participate :-)
--- Roger J ---
On Tue,
On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 19:26 -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 2/14/12 2:35 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
what silliness. it will be used as rfc 1918 space no matter what the
document
says.
[...]
any thought that this is not just adding to rfc 1918 is pure bs.
Of course it will be used
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 03:43, Martin Millnert mar...@millnert.se wrote:
This is 100% matched by an allocation of globally unique space from a
RIR, shared by whoever the interested parties are.
The IETF *need not* specify any BCP on how to improve NAT444
CGN-scale alone, because such action
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 02:34, Roger Jørgensen rog...@gmail.com wrote:
not replying specific to this mail but to the tons that have arrived
lately, are there some confusion out there that it is the amount of
votes on ietf@ that make a do/do not on a draft? ... or just me
missunderstanding
Dear Chris,
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 08:43 -0700, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 03:43, Martin Millnert mar...@millnert.se wrote:
This is 100% matched by an allocation of globally unique space from a
RIR, shared by whoever the interested parties are.
The IETF *need not*
On 16/02/2012 16:35, Martin Millnert wrote:
You seem to want me to believe that:
- there is a fixed set of networks, who are going to deploy either:
- a sucky IPv4 network, or,
- a less sucky IPv4 network,
- it would be entirely depending on the passing of this draft,
- the
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 09:35, Martin Millnert mar...@millnert.se wrote:
Dear Chris,
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 08:43 -0700, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 03:43, Martin Millnert mar...@millnert.se wrote:
This is 100% matched by an allocation of globally unique space from a
Hi Nick,
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 16:58 +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
There is no particular reason to allocate this space on a regional
basis, unless for some reason you believe that you can force carriers
only to use this shared address space for specific purposes - and I
cannot see why you
Hi Chris,
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 10:09 -0700, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 09:35, Martin Millnert mar...@millnert.se wrote:
snip
you seem to be of the opinion that improving the feasibility of CGN, by
making it suck less, will not have any impact on potential set of
everyone--
My position on this draft remains unchanged. It is far too forgiving of the
6to4-PMT [I-D.kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel] proposal, which I
regard as abominable. That reason alone, in my judgment, is sufficient grounds
that it should not be published. I also share
On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
The bottom line for this ID is that address space will be required for CGN,
and rfc1918 doesn't cut it for reasons described in the ID. This means
that the address space must come from somewhere else. The choices are:
1. one or more shared
On 16/02/2012 19:42, David Conrad wrote:
One implication of draft-weil not being accepted is that it will likely
accelerate IPv4 free pool exhaustion as the folks interested in
draft-weil will simply go out and get blocks from their RIRs while they
still can. I will admit a small part of me
I fully support this draft and would like to see it progress to conclusion
without further delay.
With warm regard,
Kirk Erichsen
Principle Technology Engineer
Time Warner Cable
ATG West
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is
I'm agnostic about the latest round of changes or not. I just want EITHER
version to move forward soon!
Owen
On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
To the addressed folks who's messages appear below:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. There was some objection at the
Sorry Noel but I choice to reply public to this one.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
IPv6 is The Key!
If you think denying a CGN block will do anything at all to help IPv6,
you're very confused.
quote out of context etc... but my change of
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Sure, that's very common, but these devices are consumer electronics and
will get gradually replaced by IPv6-supporting boxes as time goes on.
The problem is that IPv6
The more serious problem is that IPv6 people in IETF do
not admit IPv6 broken, which makes it impossible to fix
IPv6.
Make a draft, gather your supporters and take that discussion on
6man wg. I'm sure there are people open to consider any arguments on
what's wrong/or not.
Now, I'm tired of
From: Roger Jorgensen rog...@gmail.com
Sorry Noel but I choice to reply public to this one.
Ah, no, actually. Had you thought about it for a moment or two, you could
have realized that you could have made your point just as well without
publicly quoting my private email. But why am I
I also support this draft.
Donald
On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Daryl Tanner daryl.tan...@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
I support this updated draft, and I am keen for this to be published as a
BCP.
I believe the amendments in this revision clarify the usage and intended
purpose of the shared
I support this updated draft, and I am keen for this to be published as a
BCP.
+1
I believe the amendments in this revision clarify the usage and intended
purpose of the shared transition space.
+1
Ned
___
Ietf
I support this draft as updated.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
+1, I support this draft… Bill Check
On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:08 AM, Thienpondt Hans wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14
+1
I support this draft!
Best Regards,
Hans
--
Hans Thienpondt
Technology Engineer
Converged Network
Apologies for top posting rather than addressing specific
commentators, but there have been several misconceptions raised
several times that I felt should be addressed generically:
1) We are out of IPv4 space / There's no-where to get this /10 -
There is already a /10 reserved by the ARIN
To the addressed folks who's messages appear below:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. There was some objection
at the beginning of this thread by Wes George, Noel Chiappa, and Brian
Carpenter. I agreed that the document could be misunderstood as
encouraging the use of the space as
To the addressed folks who's messages appear below:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. There was some objection
at the beginning of this thread by Wes George, Noel Chiappa, and Brian
Carpenter. I agreed that the document could be misunderstood as
encouraging the use of the space as
Pete Resnick wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. There was some
objection at the beginning of this thread by Wes George, Noel
Chiappa, and Brian Carpenter. I agreed that the document
could be misunderstood as encouraging the use of the space as
1918 space and proposed
On 2/14/12 1:50 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Are you now objecting to that replacement text and want -14 published as
is? Do you think the document should say that the new allocation can be
used as 1918 space? If so, please explain.
Not sure how a +1 to a statement saying I support
On 2/14/12 1:50 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Are you now objecting to that replacement text and want -14 published as
is? Do you think the document should say that the new allocation can be
used as 1918 space? If so, please explain.
Not sure how a +1 to a statement saying I
Do you, or do you not, object to the proposed change that changes the
text from saying, This space may be used just as 1918 space to This
space has limitations and cannot be used as 1918 space?
what silliness. it will be used as rfc 1918 space no matter what the document
says.
nine years
Randy Bush writes:
in response to Pete Resnick, who wrote:
Do you, or do you not, object to the proposed change that
changes the text from saying, This space may be used just
as 1918 space to This space has limitations and cannot be
used as 1918 space?
what silliness. it will be used as
On 2012-02-15 09:35, Randy Bush wrote:
Do you, or do you not, object to the proposed change that changes the
text from saying, This space may be used just as 1918 space to This
space has limitations and cannot be used as 1918 space?
what silliness. it will be used as rfc 1918 space no
In that I completely agree with what Randy is saying, the point
that needs to be made is that this should not be officially
sanctioned as RFC-1918 space -- no manufacturer or programmer
should treat this netblock the same.
If some fly-by-night company chooses to use it on their own,
well,
Randy Bush writes:
in response to me:
In that I completely agree with what Randy is saying, the point
that needs to be made is that this should not be officially
sanctioned as RFC-1918 space -- no manufacturer or programmer
should treat this netblock the same.
If some fly-by-night
On 2/14/12 2:35 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
what silliness. it will be used as rfc 1918 space no matter what the document
says.
[...]
any thought that this is not just adding to rfc 1918 is pure bs.
Of course it will be used as 1918 space. That's not the point of the text.
The text is saying,
Randy Bush wrote:
what silliness. it will be used as rfc 1918 space no matter what the document
says.
The difference is on how future conflicts can be resolved.
nine years ago i was in bologna and did a traceroute out. i was surprised
to find that the isp was using un-announced us
On 12-02-14 3:49 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
In that I completely agree with what Randy is saying, the point
that needs to be made is that this should not be officially
sanctioned as RFC-1918 space -- no manufacturer or programmer
should treat this netblock the same.
If some
Support Draft as written +1.
Victor K
On 12-02-14 12:38 PM, William Check bch...@ncta.com wrote:
+1, I support this draft Bill Check
On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:08 AM, Thienpondt Hans wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14
+1
I support this draft!
On 02/14/2012 17:26, Pete Resnick wrote:
Of course it will be used as 1918 space. That's not the point of the text.
My first reply in this most recent version of the thread pointed out
that now that we're finally willing to admit that if a new block is
issued it will be used as 1918 space then
On 10 Feb 2012, at 22:12, Chris Grundemann wrote:
Are you volunteering to buy everyone on earth a new CPE? If not, who
do you suggest will?
I suggest the ISPs, they are charging for the service, right?
My bet is that no one is willing to drop the
billions of dollars required -
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
Are you volunteering to buy everyone on earth a new CPE? If not, who
do you suggest will?
I suggest the ISPs, they are charging for the service, right?
Lots of CPE is actually owned by the customers, not the ISPs. E.g. in our
On 2012-02-14 05:51, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
Are you volunteering to buy everyone on earth a new CPE? If not, who
do you suggest will?
I suggest the ISPs, they are charging for the service, right?
Lots of CPE is actually owned
On 02/12/2012 13:34, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
there _is_ a cost, the cost of not being able to allocate unique
address space when there is a more legitimate need than the proposed
wasting of an entire /10 to please those who did not do
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
If the RIRs do not deny these requests there is likely to be a revolt.
On what grounds? The ISPs will come along and say 'I have X new customers,
please give me more space for them'. The former being true, on what ground can
the RIRs refuse (modulo
On Feb 13, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
If an ISP can't use a shared block, they'll go ask their RIR for a block -
and given that they demonstrably have the need (lots of customers), they
will get it. Multiply than by N providers.
If the RIRs do not deny these requests there is
On 02/13/2012 12:45, David Conrad wrote:
On Feb 13, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
If an ISP can't use a shared block, they'll go ask their RIR for
a block - and given that they demonstrably have the need (lots of
customers), they will get it. Multiply than by N providers.
If the
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 02/12/2012 13:34, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
there _is_ a cost, the cost of not being able to allocate unique
address space when there is a more legitimate need than the
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
I haven't kept up to date on all of the RIRs' policies for granting
requests, but I don't recall seeing give me a huge block so that I
can do CGN as one of the established criteria.
An ISP needs a block of size X for CGN only if it has X
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 03:42:58PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
If the RIRs do not deny these requests there is likely to be a revolt.
On what grounds? The ISPs will come along and say 'I have X new customers,
please give me more space for
Hi Noel,
At 12:42 13-02-2012, Noel Chiappa wrote:
On what grounds? The ISPs will come along and say 'I have X new customers,
please give me more space for them'. The former being true, on what ground can
the RIRs refuse (modulo cases like RIPE)?
If you have X new customers and you ask a RIR to
On 02/13/2012 13:46, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
I haven't kept up to date on all of the RIRs' policies for granting
requests, but I don't recall seeing give me a huge block so that I
can do CGN as one of the established criteria.
An ISP
Mans,
On Feb 13, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
To sum things up, we are at the stage where a /10 is a laughable
proposition.
Other than APNIC, I don't think this is correct. Perhaps folks from the RIRs
can confirm.
It is either 10/8 or squat. No other alternatives exist. I'd
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 02:36:34PM -0800, David Conrad wrote:
Mans,
On Feb 13, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
To sum things up, we are at the stage where a /10 is a laughable
proposition.
Other than APNIC, I don't think this is correct. Perhaps folks from the RIRs
can
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Sure, that's very common, but these devices are consumer electronics and
will get gradually replaced by IPv6-supporting boxes as time goes on.
The problem is that IPv6 specification is still broken in
several ways to be not operational that existing boxes must
be
At 08:02 11-02-2012, Noel Chiappa wrote:
In reality, the _only_ choice the IETF has is between:
- Deploy CGNAT with messy ad-hoc assigned addresses (squatting, whatever)
- Deploy CGNAT with an assigned address block
There is an IPR disclosure on file for RFC 6264 (Informative
reference).
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 08:39:03PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
We already have a way to make collisions very unlikely, don't use
either of 192.168.[01].
I gather that that's not desirable, because otherwise people wouldn't be
asking for
In message 20120212204623.gl27...@besserwisser.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns?= N
ilsson writes:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 08:39:03PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
=
We already have a way to make collisions very unlikely, don't use
either of
From: Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
there _is_ a cost, the cost of not being able to allocate unique
address space when there is a more legitimate need than the proposed
wasting of an entire /10 to please those who did not do the right
thing.
On the contrary,
Mark Andrews writes:
In message 20120212204623.gl27...@besserwisser.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns?=
N
ilsson writes:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 08:39:03PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
We already have a way to make collisions very unlikely,
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 04:34:40PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
there _is_ a cost, the cost of not being able to allocate unique
address space when there is a more legitimate need than the proposed
wasting of an entire /10 to please
From: Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
denying this block is likely to _accelerate_ usage of what space
remains
What happened to
- See CGN deployed using various hacks (e.g. squatting on space)
- See CGN deployed using a block of space allocated for that purpose
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:13:25PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
I still strongly oppose the publication of this draft. In any form
except a complete rewrite telling providers to use RFC1918 and be done
with it.
If you have any good technical reasons for finding this a bad idea
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:44:42PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
This is only about allocating a chunk of address space.
For which there is better use than prolonging bad technical solutions.
Address translation has set the state of consumer computing back severely.
It might be all nice and
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:44:42PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
This is only about allocating a chunk of address space.
For which there is better use than prolonging bad technical solutions.
Address translation has
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 12:31:22PM +0100, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:44:42PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
This is only about allocating a chunk of address space.
For which there is
--On Saturday, February 11, 2012 11:00 -0200 Arturo Servin
arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 Feb 2012, at 22:12, Chris Grundemann wrote:
Are you volunteering to buy everyone on earth a new CPE? If
not, who do you suggest will?
I suggest the ISPs, they are charging for the
From: Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
Address translation has set the state of consumer computing back
severely.
We basically all know that. I myself am not happy with NAT either - in
fact, back in 1992 (!!) I myself wrote what was perhaps the first
problems with NAT document.
On Feb 11, 2012, at 12:27 AM 2/11/12, Doug Barton wrote:
On 02/10/2012 20:44, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
You snipped the bit of the my post that you're responding to where I
specifically disallowed this as a reasonable argument.
What an easy way to win a
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 08:34, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
So, Chris, if you expect this allocation will avoid the costs of
signing everyone up for IPv6-capable CPE, what is your
transition plan? Or are you advocating an IPv4-forever model?
If the latter, can you explain
Nilsson wrote:
For which there is better use than prolonging bad technical solutions.
A problem is that IPv6 is a bad technical solution.
For examples, its bloated address space is bad, ND with full
of bloated useless features is bad and multicast PMTUD only
to cause ICMP implosions is bad.
On 02/11/2012 04:52, Ralph Droms wrote:
On Feb 11, 2012, at 12:27 AM 2/11/12, Doug Barton wrote:
Ok, let's go with that. We already have a way to make collisions
very unlikely, don't use either of 192.168.[01]. Fortunately this
method doesn't require allocation of a new block.
But, what
But, what we've been told by operators in the discussion about this
^ some
draft is that very unlikely is not sufficiently unlikely, and that
no /10 within the set of RFC 1918 addresses makes the probability of a
collision sufficiently unlikely. You may disagree
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
We already have a way to make collisions very unlikely, don't use
either of 192.168.[01].
I gather that that's not desirable, because otherwise people wouldn't be
asking for another block. Of course it could probably be made to work
somehow -
On 2/11/12 04:52 , Ralph Droms wrote:
But, what we've been told by operators in the discussion about this
draft is that very unlikely is not sufficiently unlikely, and
that no /10 within the set of RFC 1918 addresses makes the
probability of a collision sufficiently unlikely. You may
On 2/9/12 3:40 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 6.2.5.6.2.20120209091221.082cb...@resistor.net, SM writes:
Hi Chris,
At 08:57 AM 2/9/2012, Chris Grundemann wrote:
http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2011/final-8
I am aware of the APNIC announcement. That's one out of
--On Friday, February 10, 2012 08:47 -0700 Chris Donley
c.don...@cablelabs.com wrote:
...
Please remember that this draft is in support of ARIN Draft
Policy 2011-5. Should this draft become an RFC, and should
ARIN pony up the /10, ARIN's staff is likely to look askance
at requests for
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:15, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
To follow up on an earlier comment, the rate at which ARIN (or
other RIRs) are running out of /10s (or /8s) is probably
irrelevant, as are hypotheses about what ARIN staff might do
about requests for allocation for CGN use
--On Friday, February 10, 2012 11:22 -0700 Chris Grundemann
cgrundem...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:15, John C Klensin
john-i...@jck.com wrote:
To follow up on an earlier comment, the rate at which ARIN (or
other RIRs) are running out of /10s (or /8s) is probably
On 02/10/2012 07:47, Chris Donley wrote:
Please remember that this draft is in support of ARIN Draft Policy 2011-5.
Partially, sure. But RFCs apply to the whole Internet.
IMO, an IETF RFC is not the correct place to tell ARIN or other RIRs how
to allocate space;
I'm not going to parse the
On 02/10/2012 10:22, Chris Grundemann wrote:
This is not about IPv4 life-support.
Seriously?
This is about providing the best answer to a difficult problem.
The best answer is to make sure that CPEs that will be doing CGN can
handle the same 1918 space inside the user network and at the CGN
On 2012-02-11 11:09, Doug Barton wrote:
On 02/10/2012 07:47, Chris Donley wrote:
Please remember that this draft is in support of ARIN Draft Policy 2011-5.
Partially, sure. But RFCs apply to the whole Internet.
Hear hear.
IMO, an IETF RFC is not the correct place to tell ARIN or other
On 2/9/12 10:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
As I (and many others) remain opposed to this entire concept I think
it's incredibly unfortunate that the IESG has decided to shift the topic
of conversation from whether this should happen to how it should
happen.
As an AD who is now comfortable
On 02/10/2012 15:42, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 2/9/12 10:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
As I (and many others) remain opposed to this entire concept I think
it's incredibly unfortunate that the IESG has decided to shift the topic
of conversation from whether this should happen to how it should
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 15:13, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 02/10/2012 10:22, Chris Grundemann wrote:
This is not about IPv4 life-support.
Seriously?
Seriously.
The birth of a shared CGN space in no significant way extends the life
of IPv4. It does provide the best possible
On 02/10/2012 16:12, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 15:13, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 02/10/2012 10:22, Chris Grundemann wrote:
This is not about IPv4 life-support.
Seriously?
Seriously.
The birth of a shared CGN space in no significant way extends the
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 05:12:31PM -0700, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 15:13, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 02/10/2012 10:22, Chris Grundemann wrote:
This is not about IPv4 life-support.
Seriously?
Seriously.
The birth of a shared CGN space in no
Pete Resnick wrote:
and can be used by other
people who build sane equipment that understands shared addresses can
appear on two different interfaces.
With so complicated functionality of NAT today, the only
practical approach to build such equipment is to make it
a double NAT as:
On Feb 10, 2012 4:25 PM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 05:12:31PM -0700, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 15:13, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 02/10/2012 10:22, Chris Grundemann wrote:
This is not about IPv4 life-support.
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns?= Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
We do not need another reason for people to delay v6 deployment.
The last time this issue (CGNAT space) was discussed, we were asked not to
open this can of worms. I don't know if that request still holds, but
seriously,
On 2/10/12 3:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 02/10/2012 15:42, Pete Resnick wrote:
I expect there will be clarifications as per the earlier messages in
this thread: This is *not* to be used as additional 1918 space.
The following is not meant to be a snark
Not taken as such.
...I
On 2/10/12 6:38 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Pete Resnick wrote:
and can be used by other
people who build sane equipment that understands shared addresses can
appear on two different interfaces.
With so complicated functionality of NAT today, the only
practical approach to build such
Thanks for your response, mine is below, with snipping.
On 02/10/2012 19:19, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 2/10/12 3:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 02/10/2012 15:42, Pete Resnick wrote:
I expect there will be clarifications as per the earlier messages in
this thread: This is *not* to be used as
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
My point is that no matter how loudly you say, Don't use this as
1918 space! some users will do it anyway.
And if they do, any problem that results is _their_ problem.
That means that there is no reason to allocate this new block.
No.
On 02/10/2012 20:04, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
My point is that no matter how loudly you say, Don't use this as
1918 space! some users will do it anyway.
And if they do, any problem that results is _their_ problem.
You snipped the bit of the
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
You snipped the bit of the my post that you're responding to where I
specifically disallowed this as a reasonable argument.
What an easy way to win a debate: 'I hereby disallow the following
counter-arguments {A, B, C}, and since you have no
On 02/10/2012 20:44, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
You snipped the bit of the my post that you're responding to where I
specifically disallowed this as a reasonable argument.
What an easy way to win a debate: 'I hereby disallow the following
Pete Resnick wrote:
and can be used by other
people who build sane equipment that understands shared addresses can
appear on two different interfaces.
With so complicated functionality of NAT today, the only
practical approach to build such equipment is to make it
a double NAT
Correct.
At 03:03 PM 1/30/2012, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider the following document:
- 'IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared CGN Space'
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14.txt as a BCP
On its December 15, 2011 telechat, the IESG
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 08:44, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
In Section 3:
A Service Provider can number the interfaces in question from
legitimately assigned globally unique address space. While this
solution poses the fewest problems, it is impractical because
globally unique IPv4
Hi Chris,
At 08:57 AM 2/9/2012, Chris Grundemann wrote:
http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2011/final-8
I am aware of the APNIC announcement. That's one out of five regions.
Are you proposing that every ISP on the planet be given a /10 for
inside CGN use, rather than one single /10
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:59, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Chris,
At 08:57 AM 2/9/2012, Chris Grundemann wrote:
http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2011/final-8
I am aware of the APNIC announcement. That's one out of five regions.
My apologies, when you stated I haven't seen any
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
