[171513] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Sat May 3 14:48:33 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 11:48:14 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAC1-dt=zR+tYGghpYs=ABAKq0WW4j4Gi-Z+q_VMY0DPUKjLG=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--1sQKic1W9g3Ow3Xan1nWm8a07QiLnSjmP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 5/3/14, 10:36 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>> a good number of us use that kinky /10 behind home nats and encourage
>> everyone to do so. it was a sick deal and should be treated as such,
>> just more 1918.
>=20
> A good number of folks use other folks IP space in all kinds of
> strange and kinky ways too - it's ALL just more 1918, right??? Or
> maybe standards exist for a reason. Perhaps enhancing coordination,
> cooperation, and *interoperability* are good things... I'll let you
> decide, Randy; is it sick to solve problems through community
> consensus and standardization, or is it sick to be the one
> intentionally getting in the way of those real world solutions?
Any time you have two parties that have to interconnect who have
overlapping usage of the same space you're going to have issues.
The authors the 6598 were concerned about intersection with legacy CPE.
100.64.0.0/10 does not yet have that issue. The use cases being
described here (randy causing pollution, numbering internal network
resources (the intended purpose after all)) have no relationship to
legacy CPE.
characterizing it as shared was always a misnomer since by their nature
collisions are not sharing.
in a somewhat unrelated note this prefix is still leaking in some
globally visible ways in some places.
e.g. if you're as3303 you probably shouldn't be importing these prefixes
from customers or exporting as part of your full table given that you
also accept them from subsidiaries. that's likely to end in tears.
> Cheers,
> ~Chris
>=20
>>
>> randy
>=20
--1sQKic1W9g3Ow3Xan1nWm8a07QiLnSjmP
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlNlOe8ACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrL3uwCdEAvs4PO0RWdmKPJXC7T5oiuB
ycIAninT3jgd0MXWfSG6t44cHAykQO5+
=vKLd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--1sQKic1W9g3Ow3Xan1nWm8a07QiLnSjmP--
