Re: [OPSAWG] Heads Up - Need to clarify the issue

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:19, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Is it not globally unique, yes, is it unfettered in it's use (i.e. 1918),
> then no.  Joel, if you are defining as being 1918-like (whatever that is) is
> simply !global_routing_table, then it's like 1918, just as the rest of the
> bogon list, e space, 127/8, 0/8, etc.   Please read the last draft as to how
> the MUSTs and SHOULDs are defined.  It IS different for some values of
> different.


FWIW, I agree with Joel that for all intents and purposes, this is
additional RFC1918 space. The only two differences are that

a) It's not already in use. Thus, everyone can use it no matter if
RFC1918 is already used up in their relative networks.
b) You should not use it for documentation purposes.

I am still not convinced NAT444 is a good idea as if will simply
prolong the inevitable pain while replacing some specific problems
that can be fixed locally (need to upgrade core & cpe devices) with
problems that affect people who can't fix them (no connectivity to
people who made the transition, breaking the end-to-end assumption on
a huge scale).

As has been pointed out repeatedly, a /10 is not enough for reasonably
large networks, anyway. 224/4 might cut it for most ISPs but that
address space is permanently useless for obvious reasons. Unless
someone comes up with a _new_ use for that IPv4 space. Which sounds
somewhat unlikely.


NAT444 will create even _more_ incentive to not transition quickly.
And it will convince even more people that the whole IPv6 issue is
made up and that IPv4 will live forever.


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