Subject: Re: Consensus Call (Update): draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 17:15:10 -0500 (EST)

> From: =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson <[email-masked]>

    > 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 familiar enough with tunnels to see some
issue there), especially considering people are (re-)using 1918 space for that
now. Anyway, if that did work, it should kill a bunch of these problems.

	Noel

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 17:47:21 -0500

Noel Chiappa <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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 IPs, and try to static-route
so the endpoint actually receives traffic to that IP. (It doesn't always
work.)

> I would think it could be re-used across enterprises (but I'm probably
> not familiar enough with tunnels to see some issue there),

   Presumably we wouldn't receive traffic to these IPs, but at least
the outgoing ICMP errors wouldn't be blocked.

> especially considering people are (re-)using 1918 space for that now.
> Anyway, if that did work, it should kill a bunch of these problems.

   It certainly seems like an improvement...

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>