On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Randy Bush wrote: > > The assumption in my question is that if the legacy (broken?) gear in > > question all uses 10/8 *and* we publish a document that declares a > > particular (presently unused by said gear) block of 1918 address space > > is henceforth off limits to use in equipment that can't translate when > > addresses are identical on the outside and the inside, then the use of > > that 1918 address space might be "safe" for CGNs to use. > > might require a cpe change. about the same change as for the cpe to > recognize new/10 as non-public.
Maybe I'm missing something, but why would CPE need to recognize a new /10 CGN block as non-public? Isn't the whole idea to leave the CPE unchanged and get the CGN boxes (and the rest of the core network infrastructure) to recognize the /10 CGN block as non-routeable? //cmh _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
