[151366] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shared address space... a reality!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (cdel.firsthand.net)
Fri Mar 16 16:22:28 2012
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXWk9UDoWs9qweQ9ZnEn9QCSpm3nbKA6MPvnwWD6=r9-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: "cdel.firsthand.net" <cdel@firsthand.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:21:19 +0000
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
NAT at the edge is one thing as it gives an easy to sell security propositio=
n for the board. But CGN controlled by whoever sitting between their NATs do=
es the opposite.=20
Christian de Larrinaga
On 16 Mar 2012, at 19:35, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> 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: 100.64.0.0 - 100.127.255.255
>>> CIDR: 100.64.0.0/10
>>> OriginAS:
>>> NetName: SHARED-ADDRESS-SPACE-RFCTBD-IANA-RESERVED
>>=20
>> Weren't we supposed to *solve* the end-to-end connectivity problem,
>> instead of just letting it live?
>=20
> "We" forgot to ask if all the stakeholders wanted it solved. Most
> self-styled "enterprise" operators don't: they want a major control
> point at the network border. Deliberately breaking end to end makes
> that control more certain. Which is why they deployed IPv4 NAT boxen
> long before address scarcity became an impactful issue.
>=20
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>=20
