Re: [v6ops] [OPSAWG] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs
Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ops,gmane.ietf.v6ops |
|---|---|
| Organization | University of Auckland |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Wasn't it special purpose entities that brought down Enron?
The analogy is not facetious. SPEs do things that are invisible
in the architecture and they contain hidden state. Using
a non-global non-RFC1918 prefix actually introduces a new address
family that the architecture doesn't understand at all.
Do we have any idea how many bits of software and firmware
contain logic something like
if prefix in {10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16} then ... ?
I presume all those components would have to be touched.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2010-11-12 15:57, james woodyatt wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2010, at 17:33, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote:
>
>> Summary of the proposal - adverse possession (i.e. squatters' rights) with the 444 operators being the desseisor?
>
> Nothing like that. More like this: the NAT444 operators incorporate a special purpose entity (SPE) for holding the assignment to one or more "shared transition" prefixes. They obtain the prefixes the same way everyone else does, by applying to a RIR for them. The SPE is responsible for complying with all the requirements for maintaining the allocation and keeping the routes to the prefixes clean in the default-free zone. The NAT444 operators use the prefixes to their wicked hearts' content. Problem solved.
>
>
> --
> james woodyatt <[email protected]>
> member of technical staff, communications engineering
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>