Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
> Maybe we should allocate a chunk of space explicity for tunnel termination,
> instead of using 1918 for that?
Interesting... I've learned to avoid 1918 for tunnel endpoints at
almost-any cost: you lose all diagnostic packets.
As it is now, I assign fully-routable I
> From: =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson
> I have 1918 space at home, that is used at work. My VPN works.
Maybe we should allocate a chunk of space explicity for tunnel termination,
instead of using 1918 for that? I would think it could be re-used across
enterprises (but I'm probably not fam
> "Chris" == Chris Donley writes:
Chris> We're requesting a /10, not a /12 or /15 (devices attached to
Chris> one CGN might use the whole /15). Such an allocation would
Chris> be too small for a regional CGN deployment at a larger ISP,
Chris> and would likely result in double
> "Mark" == Mark Andrews writes:
Mark> This is not a ISP/CUSTOMER problem. This is a
Mark> ISP/CUSTOMER/WORK problem.
Mark> You have the ISP using 172.16/12 You have the customer using
Mark> 192.168/16 or 10/8 You have WORK using 172.16/12
Mark> Enterpises have choosen
I don't want to go too far down this road, as it touches sensitive network
architecture issues, but I think you're thinking of this in terms of a
box. Please think, instead, of a regional network with failover
capabilities and widely distributed customers.The aggregate need is
(at least) a /10
On 5 Dec 2011, at 18:08, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> I hear you. However, after thinking about it for a while, I still think we
> ought to include a chunk of 240/ space _as well as_ some 'general use' space
> (be it a /10 of that, or whatever).
+1
Ray
___
Hi Ron
On 3 December 2011 22:06, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> Folks,
>
> On Thursday, December 1, the IESG deferred its decision regarding
> draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request to the December 15 telechat. The
> decision was deferred because:
>
> - it is difficult. (We are choosing between the
Subject: Re: Consensus Call (Update):
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request Date: Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at
12:30:05PM +1100 Quoting Mark Andrews (ma...@isc.org):
> > Does anybody know of any evidence to the contrary?=20
>
> This is not a ISP/CUSTOMER problem. This is a ISP/C
Subject: Re: Consensus Call (Update):
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request Date: Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at
08:17:47PM -0700 Quoting Chris Donley (c.don...@cablelabs.com):
> We're requesting a /10, not a /12 or /15 (devices attached to one CGN
> might use the whole /15). Such an
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> I was suggesting them purely for infrastucture use, in (probably _very_
> limited) usage domains where their visibility would be over a limited scope,
> one where all devices can be 'pre-cleared' for using them.
More generally, class E should be used for unicast only when
op
12/7/11 3:35 PM, "Måns Nilsson" wrote:
>Subject: Re: Consensus Call (Update):
>draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request Date: Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at
>11:31:11AM -0800 Quoting David Conrad (d...@virtualized.org):
>> Michael,
>>
>> On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:39 AM
On 12/7/11 11:39 AM, "Michael Richardson" wrote:
>
>> "Benson" == Benson Schliesser writes:
>Benson> However, there is one essential point that I'd like to
>Benson> clarify: We need a common standard for numbering CGN NAT444
>Benson> deployments.
>
>Benson> For NAT444 deplo
On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:57 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> I wasn't suggesting using general use for 240/ addresses, as endpoint names -
> that's a hopeless cause, there are too many things out there that can't deal
> with them. Who wants an address lots of people can't talk to (with, or
> without, a mech
In message <20111207223526.gj20...@besserwisser.org>, =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nils
son writes:
> Subject: Re: Consensus Call (Update): draft-weil-shared-transition-space-re=
> quest Date: Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 11:31:11AM -0800 Quoting David Conrad (drc=
> @virtualized.org):
> > Michael,
> >=20
> > On
> From: Mark Andrews
> And it needs a seperate I-D which indicates how equipement can signal
> that it supports 240.0/10. Returning such a address to equipment that
> is not prepared to receive is a *very* bad idea.
I wasn't suggesting using general use for 240/ addresses, as end
In message <20111207220317.3530b18c...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, Noel Chiappa write
s:
> > From: Michael Richardson
>
> > The CGN space seems like a very good place to use 240.0/10.
> > A single organization often controls and specifies all equipment which
> > will use the address sp
Subject: Re: Consensus Call (Update):
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request Date: Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at
11:31:11AM -0800 Quoting David Conrad (d...@virtualized.org):
> Michael,
>
> On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > The CGN space seems like a very go
> From: Michael Richardson
> The CGN space seems like a very good place to use 240.0/10.
> A single organization often controls and specifies all equipment which
> will use the address space
Not _exclusively_ 240/, though, because as has been pointed out numerous
times, for many
On Dec 7, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On 2011-12-06 22:06, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> ISPs need to use addressing within this scope that does not cause
>> (additional)
>> problems for their existing customers (and their customers' equipment). And
>> in
>> the event of an address
> "David" == David Conrad writes:
David> On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> The CGN space seems like a very good place to use 240.0/10.
David> I believe the main driver behind this discussion is the need
David> to deal with deployed non-field-upgradable
Michael,
On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> The CGN space seems like a very good place to use 240.0/10.
I believe the main driver behind this discussion is the need to deal with
deployed non-field-upgradable CPE that has issues with having RFC 1918 space
being assigned on
> "Benson" == Benson Schliesser writes:
Benson> However, there is one essential point that I'd like to
Benson> clarify: We need a common standard for numbering CGN NAT444
Benson> deployments.
Benson> For NAT444 deployments of CGN, we are talking about a new
Benson> scope
On 2011-12-06 22:06, Benson Schliesser wrote:
ISPs need to use addressing within this scope that does not cause (additional)
problems for their existing customers (and their customers' equipment). And in
the event of an addressing conflict, operators (on both sides) need a common
reference to det
Hi, Ron.
On Dec 3, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, the IESG deferred its decision regarding
> draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request to the December 15 telechat.
I support the assignment of an IPv4 /10 for shared CGN space. Most of my
thoughts on this topi
On Dec 5, 2011 7:48 PM, "Chris Grundemann" wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 15:06, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> > By contrast, further discussion of the following topics would not help
the IESG gauge consensus:
>
>
> Agreed. The bottom line here is that if we remove ourselves from the
> religious/pol
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 15:06, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> Several topic have become intertwined in the mailing list discussion, making
> it difficult to gauge community consensus. Further discussion of the
> following topics would help the IESG to gauge consensus:
>
> - Is the reserved /10 required
> From: Chris Donley
> Both draft-bdgks and RFC 6319 describe the problems with 240/4 - too
> many legacy devices won't support it. ... In addition, back-office
> systems would need to be able to use the same 240/4 space for network
> monitoring/maintenance, billing, lawful in
--On Monday, December 05, 2011 09:36 -0600 Pete Resnick
wrote:
> On 12/4/11 12:33 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>> 3) Use RFC-1918 address space. That would work for pure
>> "consumer" applications, but would break things like remote
>> employees using VPNs. I don't think that's a result we
>> sh
On 12/4/11 12:33 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
3) Use RFC-1918 address space. That would work for pure "consumer" applications, but
would break things like remote employees using VPNs. I don't think that's a result we should want
to happen, because it affects "good-citizen" Enterprises who aren't
On Dec 4, 2011, at 2:48 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> 2) "Squat" on someone else's space or un-allocated space. I don't think
>> that's a result we should want to happen, for obvious reasons. (I also don't
>> think it's likely many ISPs would do this either - just noting it's possible)
>
> Say y
Ron,
Please see in-line.
Chris
On 12/3/11 3:06 PM, "Ronald Bonica" wrote:
>
>- Is the reserved /10 required for the deployment of CGN?
No, but it simplifies operations, lowers risk, and reduces aggregate
demand. If you take ARIN's current burn rate of about a /10 per month, and
assume tha
Hadriel,
On Dec 4, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>> It isn't a question of whether CGN can be deployed, it is a question of how.
>> As far as I can tell, lack of the a new /10 will simply mean ISPs get to
>> make an operational decision, the result of which will either be more rapid
On Dec 4, 2011, at 11:20 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> It isn't a question of whether CGN can be deployed, it is a question of how.
> As far as I can tell, lack of the a new /10 will simply mean ISPs get to make
> an operational decision, the result of which will either be more rapid
> exhaustion
Ron,
On Dec 3, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> - Is the reserved /10 required for the deployment of CGN?
Obviously not.
It isn't a question of whether CGN can be deployed, it is a question of how.
As far as I can tell, lack of the a new /10 will simply mean ISPs get to make
an operat
Subject: Consensus Call (Update): draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request
Date: Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 05:06:42PM -0500 Quoting Ronald Bonica
(rbon...@juniper.net):
> Folks,
>
> On Thursday, December 1, the IESG deferred its decision regarding
> draft-weil-shared-transition-spac
Ron,
>Folks,
>
>On Thursday, December 1, the IESG deferred its decision regarding
>draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request to the December 15 telechat.
>The decision was deferred because:
>
>- it is difficult. (We are choosing between the lesser of two evils.)
>- a lively discussion on this ma
Folks,
On Thursday, December 1, the IESG deferred its decision regarding
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request to the December 15 telechat. The
decision was deferred because:
- it is difficult. (We are choosing between the lesser of two evils.)
- a lively discussion on this mailing list ha
37 matches
Mail list logo
