[151351] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shared address space... a reality!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Octavio Alvarez)
Fri Mar 16 14:04:54 2012
To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:01:58 -0700
From: "Octavio Alvarez" <alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaZyPBDaGyom4Qrdt+TfzBONftH_Zxtjp1MfiH3tBLXejA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:22:04 -0700, Christopher Morrow
<christopher.morrow@gmail.com> wrote:
> NetRange: 100.64.0.0 - 100.127.255.255
> CIDR: 100.64.0.0/10
> OriginAS:
> NetName: SHARED-ADDRESS-SPACE-RFCTBD-IANA-RESERVED
Weren't we supposed to *solve* the end-to-end connectivity problem,
instead of just letting it live?
Sure, this lets CGN to be more organized for operators, but those that
already have RFC5735 addresses implemented will not switch to 100.64/10
just because there's a new block. Only new players will actually benefit
from this. It will only make it easier for new players to play in
IPv4 instead of being pushed to IPv6.
--
Octavio.
