Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

[Joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 12/1/11 20:28 , Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 12/1/11 10:12 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 12/01/2011 19:47, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>   
>>> The current draft says that the reason 1918 space can't be used is that
>>> equipment that deals in 1918 address space is hosed if 1918 addresses
>>> are used on their external interface.
>>>      
>> Let's assume that's true for a second (I haven't seen any evidence of
>> that). We all know that if the /10 is allocated that people are going to
>> use it for 1918 space. So, back to square 1.
>>    
> 
> No, that's not true. Once this document claims that a particular block
> of addresses will be used on both internal and external interfaces,
> whether they're from a part of 1918 space that isn't used by the broken
> equipment *or* from a new /10 (which obviously isn't used by the broken
> equipment), any *new* use of this address space by *newly* broken
> equipment is acceptable to the CGN people. The only thing the current
> document worries about is deployed equipment that the CGN people can't
> push back on. So either a new /10 or 1918 space not used by current
> broken equipment addresses this problem.
> 
>>> Brian claimed that perhaps
>>> 172.16/12 space might not be used by that equipment. Robert claimed that
>>> perhaps only 192.168 and 10.0.0.x addresses are used by that equipment.
>>> So the question I posed was, "Does any of *that* equipment use 172.16/12
>>> (or 10.x/16) space?" Nobody has said "yes".
>>>
>>> And *I'm* still not claiming that the answer is "No." I simply don't
>>> know. But I'm inclined to hear from anybody to indicate that there is
>>> *any* evidence that the answer is "Yes". That would make me much more
>>> comfortable in concluding that new specialized address space is the
>>> better horn of this bull to throw ourselves on.
>>>      
>> The lack of research on this point has been pointed out in the past, and
>> TMK has never been addressed.
>>    
> 
> Ron's point (that part of the problem is that people simply don't know)
> is well-taken, but if there is not even anecdotal information that
> 172.16/12 or 10.x/16 is used by broken equipment, I'd like there to be
> some research before we say that allocating a /10 is necessary.

it's simpler than that.

assuming that there existing a pool of devices for which it can be
stipulated:

	* does not support a collision between internal and external
	  address ranges
	* has a collision between it's internal address ranges and
	  assigned external prefix in 10/8

It seems unlikely in the extreme that home cpe statifying both
conditions would also have a collision with an assignment out of 172.16/12.

I have never found the arguement that, that particular problem
intractable enough to benifit from and additional prefix to be
particularly compelling.



> pr
>