Re: [v6ops] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs
bill manning <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ops,gmane.ietf.v6ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Over a decade ago, when RFC 1918 was being discussed, I suggested that it might make more sense to use the address space reserved by RFC 1918 for the Public Internet and use the remainder of the address space for internal networking purposes. Invert the RFC 1918 model. This sounds like a others are finally coming around to this idea, but are only looking at it in a piecewise, incremental fashion. --bill On 11November2010Thursday, at 8:41, Victor Kuarsingh wrote: > Jason, > > I would have to disagree with that position. In our case, it would be exactly the opposite. The non-RFC1918 block would replace public addresses, therefore the same class of security policy applies. > > Using RFC1918 (other then the other technical reasons given as to what it’s problematic) would require more uplifts of security polices, ACLs, and network related configuration. > > I think the points is it is provider by provider dependant. If the provide historically used RFC1918 for addressing, then perhaps in that case it would be as you said, but this is definitely not true for providers that current supply public space to endpoints (until we run out of course). > > Regards, > > Victor > > > On 12/11/10 12:24 AM, "Jason Lin" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> hi, >> >> Considering currently security policies that have been deployed in the network, the new reserved /8 prefix may lead to not only re-design the security policies, but also reconfigure the related nodes which has high risk. >> >> so, my point is negative. >> >> Jin Yan Lin >> China Telecom >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:18:49PM +0800, Rémi Després wrote: >>> > But you won't be hurt if some others use this new /8 prefix. >>> >>> Sure. Someone else might have a good use for a /22 that they can't >>> get because the last /8 was taken away for NAT444 services. >>> >>> Especially content providers will need small bits of IPv4 space to >>> provide content to large masses of not-yet-IPv6 capable eyeballs. >>> >>> Against this proposal. >>> >>> Gert Doering >>> -- NetMaster >>> -- >>> did you enable IPv6 on something today...? >>> >>> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard >>> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >>> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >>> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> v6ops mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> v6ops mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > _______________________________________________ > OPS-AREA mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area