[151356] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shared address space... a reality!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Fri Mar 16 14:34:47 2012
In-Reply-To: <op.wa9y1kcz4oyyg1@alvarezp-ws>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:33:53 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Octavio Alvarez <alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Octavio Alvarez
<alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:22:04 -0700, Christopher Morrow
> <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> NetRange: =A0 =A0 =A0 100.64.0.0 - 100.127.255.255
>> CIDR: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 100.64.0.0/10
>> OriginAS:
>> NetName: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0SHARED-ADDRESS-SPACE-RFCTBD-IANA-RESERVED
>
>
> Weren't we supposed to *solve* the end-to-end connectivity problem,
> instead of just letting it live?
ha!
> Sure, this lets CGN to be more organized for operators, but those that
ghuston has a great presentation about CGN deployments, and how they
essentially become permanent (or could, according to his
chickenbone-readings)... It's an interesting thought
experiment/discussion, and one I'm curious to see play out.
> 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.
are you really asking: "Why on why did we go through all this hard
work for something with basically no easy to quantify return?"
hell, this may get more use than SCTP does, and sctp took a LOT longer to d=
o...
-chris
