Ralph, Please note the following report:
WIDE Technical-Report in 2010 (DOC wide-tr-kato-as112-rep-01.pdf) Report suggested that all three RFC1918 blocks are well utilized. Regards, Victor K On 11-11-30 9:19 PM, "Ralph Droms" <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 30, 2011, at 9:14 PM 11/30/11, Pete Resnick wrote: > >> Daryl, >> >> The problem described in the draft is that CPEs use 1918 space *and >>that many of them can't deal with the fact that there might be addresses >>on the outside interface that are the same as on the inside interface*. >>The claim was made by Randy, among others, that only 192.168/16 space >>was used by such unintelligent CPEs. I believe I have seen the claim >>that 10/8 space is also used in unintelligent equipment that can't deal >>with identical addresses inside and outside. > >Another suggestion was the use of 10.64.0.0/10, with the argument that >some devices may use 10.0.0.0 but those devices tend to start numbering >with 10.0.0.0/24 or 10.0.1.0/24 and none would use addresses in >10.64.0.0/10. > >Is there evidence that there are deployments today of devices that use >addresses in 10.64.0.0/10? > >- Ralph > >> Is there reason to believe that within the ISP network / back-office >>etc. that there is equipment that can't deal with 17.16/12 space being >>on both the inside and outside? I haven't seen anyone make that specific >>claim. >> >> If we know that 172.16/12 used both inside and outside will break a >>significant amount of sites that CGNs will be used with, we can ignore >>this argument. But if not, then let's rewrite the document to say that >>CGNs should use 172.16/12 and that any device that wants to use >>172.16/12 needs the ability to deal with identical addresses on the >>inside and the outside interface. Of course, all equipment should have >>always been able to deal with identical addresses inside and outside for >>all 1918 addresses anyway. But if we think the impact of using 172.16/12 >>for this purpose will cause minimal harm, then there's no compelling >>reason to allocate new space for this purpose. >> >> pr >> >> On 11/30/11 3:04 PM, Daryl Tanner wrote: >>> It's not just about the CPE devices and customer LANs. >>> >>> Address conflicts are also going to happen within the ISP network / >>>back-office etc. 172.16.0.0/12 is used there. >>> >>> >>> Daryl >>> >>> >>> On 30 November 2011 20:52, Brian E Carpenter >>><brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 2011-12-01 09:28, Chris Grundemann wrote: >>> ... >>> > It is more conservative to share a common pool. >>> >>> It suddenly occurs to me that I don't recall any serious analysis >>> of using 172.16.0.0/12 for this. It is a large chunk of space >>> (a million addresses) and as far as I know it is not used by default >>> in any common CPE devices, which tend to use the other RFC 1918 blocks. >>> >>> I realise that ISPs with more than a million customers would have to >>> re-use this space, whereas a /10 would only bring this problem above 4M >>> customers, but at that scale there would be multiple CGN monsters >>>anyway. >>> >>> Sorry to bring this up on the eve of the telechat. >> >> -- >> Pete Resnick >> <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> >> >> Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 >> > >_______________________________________________ >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
