Re: [OPSAWG] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs

Chris,

Agreed, but I don’t see that as a big engineering task.  Also, its the same
task not matter what block I use that is non-RFC1918 (IANA
assigned/reserved, squat, or my own RIR assigned used for this purpose).

Regards,

Victor


On 12/11/10 9:38 AM, "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" <[email protected]> wrote:

> You are correct, Victor.   The end-user should treat the 444 block just as
> they would treat other foreign, globally unique blocks as far as security
> policies are concerned (routing policy, however, would probably want to treat
> it as bogon).
> 
> Chris
> 
> On 12Nov2010, at 03.41, 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSAWG mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> 
> ---
> 李柯睿
> Check my PGP key here:
> https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc
> 
>

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