Subject: Consensus Call (Update): draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request
Date: Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 05:06:42PM -0500 Quoting Ronald Bonica
(rbon...@juniper.net):
Folks,
On Thursday, December 1, the IESG deferred its decision regarding
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request to the
Hi,
Tom you wrote on 3 Dec: I would commend to you the e-mail that Russ posted
here 30Nov2011 ... so claiming what is and is not part of MPLS-TP calls for
some thought.
I would suggest that you also read the following from the same e-mail from Russ
to Malcolm Johnson:
(2) I do not see
Huub, hi
I would like to thank you for this rather informative review of the
draft that you are shepherding. However, I am confused by some of the
omissions of your information -
1. In answer to question 1.b you point out that no discussion has taken
place on any email lists. However, this
I am not sure why 10.64.0.0/10 is being discussed instead of 10.128/10 or
10.192/10... but let's assume we picked 10.192.0.0/10 instead. I'm sitting at
home and my laptop currently has this interface:
inet 10.2XX.XXX.XXX netmask 0xff00 broadcast 10.2XX.XXX.XXX
[specific digits
I have a question to the authors and ISPs as well, which may help explain why
using RFC 1918 and Class-E address space can't be done; or it may not if the
answer is different.
The question: could this new address space be used *without* a NATing CPE being
provided by the ISP? In other words,
Hadreil,
I will try and summarize the information in response to your query as best
as possible. I have left your your text below (for future readers), and
will discuss address assignment behaviours in both Mobile (3GPP) and
Wireline (Cable). I will let someone discuss DSL (which will have
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
The CGN boxes are new. The customer boxes which are being allocated the
addresses are old. Lots of these boxes will not work with a 240/4
address.
Here's a question, though: would a mix of a smaller block of 'classic' IPv4
space, _along with_
Noel,
On 11-12-04 10:55 AM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
I ask because I gather there are a lot of situations where e.g. a cable
modem
has an ISP-local address on its ISP-facing side, and a global IP address
(which the customer gets) on the customer side. (I see this in checking
Ron,
On Dec 3, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
- Is the reserved /10 required for the deployment of CGN?
Obviously not.
It isn't a question of whether CGN can be deployed, it is a question of how.
As far as I can tell, lack of the a new /10 will simply mean ISPs get to make
an
Hi Victor,
Yes that helps, thanks - it confirms what I had always assumed was the case but
could not grok from the discussions on this list nor the draft.
Because the new address space is actually seen/used by the consumer's
interface, we cannot possibly pick a safe RFC 1918 address nor
On Dec 4, 2011, at 11:20 AM, David Conrad wrote:
It isn't a question of whether CGN can be deployed, it is a question of how.
As far as I can tell, lack of the a new /10 will simply mean ISPs get to make
an operational decision, the result of which will either be more rapid
exhaustion of
On 12/4/11 08:48 , Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Hi Victor, Yes that helps, thanks - it confirms what I had always
assumed was the case but could not grok from the discussions on this
list nor the draft.
Because the new address space is actually seen/used by the consumer's
interface, we cannot
On Dec 4, 2011 10:40 AM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 12/4/11 08:48 , Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Hi Victor, Yes that helps, thanks - it confirms what I had always
assumed was the case but could not grok from the discussions on this
list nor the draft.
Because the new address
Joel
It's an absurdity that the clearly impossible is in fact the defacto
deployment model.
This is the case for this specific Wireless provider and the particular
APN you are connected to. The sum of all Wireless providers do not use
RFC1918 (some do, and some do not, and some use both
- Original Message -
From: Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) yaacov.weingar...@nsn.com
To: ietf@ietf.org; t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com; adr...@olddog.co.uk
Cc: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) nurit.sprec...@nsn.com
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 9:04 AM
Tom you wrote
Yes, I know that mobile networks have started going that way - which is why I
asked the question. The reason we (the IETF) cannot possibly pick the same
RFC1918 address space is because those mobile networks now have the problem I
described: when you try to run your VPN client on that laptop,
On 12/4/11 11:06 , Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Yes, I know that mobile networks have started going that way - which
is why I asked the question.
It's not a question of starting. outside of some small number of
developed economies mobile carriers and a number of wireline providers
were always
On Dec 4, 2011 11:06 AM, Hadriel Kaplan hkap...@acmepacket.com wrote:
Yes, I know that mobile networks have started going that way - which is
why I asked the question. The reason we (the IETF) cannot possibly pick
the same RFC1918 address space is because those mobile networks now have
the
-Original Message-
From: Rolf E. Sonneveld [mailto:r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl]
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 4:49 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps-11.txt (DKIM Authorized
Third-Party Signers) to Experimental RFC
Hadriel,
On Dec 4, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
It isn't a question of whether CGN can be deployed, it is a question of how.
As far as I can tell, lack of the a new /10 will simply mean ISPs get to
make an operational decision, the result of which will either be more rapid
On Dec 4, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
It's not a question of starting. outside of some small number of
developed economies mobile carriers and a number of wireline providers
were always depolyed that way, or out of squat space however bad an idea
that may have been.
OK, yeah
-Original Message-
From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 10:38 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps-11.txt (DKIM Authorized
Third-Party Signers) to Experimental RFC
So I suggest
- Original Message -
From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) nurit.sprec...@nsn.com
To: ext t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com; stbry...@cisco.com; Adrian
Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk
Cc: iesg i...@ietf.org; ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 8:08 PM
Tom hi,
If this is
On 12/3/2011 6:41 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Dec 3, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
We cannot use 1918 for CGN because some customers use it
internally, and they have CPEs that break if the same block is used
on both sides. Therefore, we need a new, !1918 block for our side
of the CGN.
With ATPS, the requirement is to replace the d= string with the domain name
from
the From: field. That replacement value is then passed to the assessment
module.
In other words, DKIM provides it's own identifier to be used for assessment,
whereas ATPS dictates use of the From: field domain
Doug,
On Dec 4, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
a) use normal space b) use somebody else's space c) redeploy stuff
d) Use 1918 space other than 192.168.[01]/24 for 90% of customers, deal
with one-offs for the rest.
I am making the assumption that the folks who have proposed draft-weil
On 12/4/2011 1:51 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Doug,
On Dec 4, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
a) use normal space b) use somebody else's space c) redeploy stuff
d) Use 1918 space other than 192.168.[01]/24 for 90% of customers, deal
with one-offs for the rest.
I am making the
Ron,
Please see in-line.
Chris
On 12/3/11 3:06 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote:
- Is the reserved /10 required for the deployment of CGN?
No, but it simplifies operations, lowers risk, and reduces aggregate
demand. If you take ARIN's current burn rate of about a /10 per
On Dec 4, 2011, at 2:48 PM, David Conrad wrote:
2) Squat on someone else's space or un-allocated space. I don't think
that's a result we should want to happen, for obvious reasons. (I also don't
think it's likely many ISPs would do this either - just noting it's possible)
Say you are
In message 20111204155527.be11218c...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu, Noel Chiappa write
s:
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
The CGN boxes are new. The customer boxes which are being allocated the
addresses are old. Lots of these boxes will not work with a 240/4
address.
Here's
On 12/4/11 8:22 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
So you tell me how safe picking a specific RFC 1918 address space is. There are ~100,000
enterprises with over 100 employees just in the US, and ~20,000 with over 500 employees
in the US. Obviously my company is a tech company so it's probably not
On 12/2/11 12:06 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
I think there is an unstated premise in Pete's question that the set
of customers behind that legacy gear has a stable usage pattern of
private addresses. That is, if the current set of customers behind
that legacy gear uses 10/8 then use of any other
I've seen many enterprise customers using RFC 1918 address space internally.
This includes allocating 10/8 addresses for hosts, and 172.16/12 for isolated
segments behind firewalls. Since 192.168/16 may be used by employees in their
homes accessing the corpnet, often this block is avoided for
More seriously, the impression I've gathered from various discussions is
that the 90/10 model is viable, but it's not the first choice because
the 10 part involves customer service work that those interested in
deploying CGN would like to avoid in order to protect their margins. I'm
not
On Dec 4, 2011 7:10 PM, Chris Donley c.don...@cablelabs.com wrote:
More seriously, the impression I've gathered from various discussions is
that the 90/10 model is viable, but it's not the first choice because
the 10 part involves customer service work that those interested in
deploying CGN
On Dec 4, 2011 7:24 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 4, 2011 7:10 PM, Chris Donley c.don...@cablelabs.com wrote:
More seriously, the impression I've gathered from various discussions is
that the 90/10 model is viable, but it's not the first choice because
the 10 part
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
--On Sunday, December 04, 2011 20:40 -0600 Pete Resnick
presn...@qualcomm.com wrote:
...
Nope, but your close. 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)
Tom, hi
Yes, I saw the contribution that proposes these changes. However, there
is the added point that by definition the G.81xx series of documents in
the ITU are defined as MPLS over Transport aspects - therefore,
stating that this document is still part of MPLS. Not to mention, that
the
39 matches
Mail list logo
