On Nov 29, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Chris Donley wrote: > Ron, > > One point of clarification, in your *against* list, you include: > > > On 11/28/11 2:25 PM, "Ronald Bonica" <rbon...@juniper.net> wrote: > >> - Some applications will break. These applications share the >> characteristic of assuming that an interface is globally reachable if it >> is numbered by an non-RFC 1918 address. To date, the only application >> that has been identified as breaking is 6to4, but others may be >> identified in the future. > > Since this address space is between the CPE router and CGN device, and is > therefore not globally routable, the same application(s) (e.g. 6to4) will > break if public or 'squat' space are used instead of shared CGN space. > Such applications rely on the home router detecting that there is private, > non-globally routable space (i.e. RFC1918) on the WAN and disabling such > an application. While that same detection code will always fail for > public address space and squat space since the exact range is not defined, > there is the possibility of fixing the detection code in home routers if > we do define shared CGN space for that purpose.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-03 has this requirement: DLW-4: If the IPv6 CE Router is configured with a public IPv4 address on its WAN interface, where public IPv4 address is defined as any address which is not in the private IP address space specified in [RFC5735], then the IPv6 CE Router SHOULD disable the DS-Lite B4 element. I'm not sure I personally agree with this requirement, but suffice to say if this kind of language is popping up in our own v6ops documents at this very moment, there is a decent chance that it has made its way into specifications and code elsewhere. - Mark > > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
