Re: Heads up

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Fred Baker
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:30 AM
Subject: [v6ops] Heads up

>Chris Liljenstolpe has a proposal that he made in ops-area today, for a
mechanism to >create what amounts to an >RFC 1918 prefix, but specifically
for use in NAT444 ISP configurations. It involves a request to the ARIN
board. >He will write a quick draft and post it this week, discuss this
Thursday in the Ops WG, and call the question in >Friday's v6ops meeting.
Due to the real time nature of the discussion, I'll ask folks to be aware
and follow it.

I don't understand why we're writing *another* draft about this. Others have
mentioned the other drafts that are floating around (and being shot down),
but here they are:
http://zinfandel.levkowetz.com/html/draft-weil-opsawg-provider-address-space
-02
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shirasaki-isp-shared-addr-05 

Use one of those, add any arguments that they have not already covered.

However, I like others who have posted am very much against this idea. 
I have yet to see a good explanation as to why we should squander such a
limited resource because multiple sets of 1918 space is hard to manage, and
squatting on unannounced legacy space (DoD and others) so that you have a /8
or two to play internally with is equal parts risky and evil. It's a bad
situation, but this doesn't solve it.

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Ronald Bonica

>BTW, the LISP WG is talking about asking for a prefix for a very similar
reason.

And I told *them* it was a bad idea too. 

Wes George

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops