Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14.txt> (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space) to BCP

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:40:17 -0500 (EST)

> From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>

    > I've been recommending this direction (that this is basically just more
    > private space, no magic)

Is that wise? I thought (IIRC, and maybe I'm spacing) the whole reason for
allocating this space was that 1918 space _couldn't_ easily be used for CGN
because there were too many conflicting usages. So, now we're making more 1918
space? This is a good idea... how? If we need more 1918 space, let's do so
deliberately, and not kill the usefulness of this space for CGN. (Unless, of
course...)

	Noel

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:59:00 -0500

> From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> because there were too many conflicting usages.
[WEG] yes, but the general sense I got from the ensuing discussion was that no one expects anyone to actually adhere to that advice (ie MUST NOT be used as substitute for 1918 space), and as soon as the space is released, it'll be "cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria..." because everyone and their cousin will start using it as 1918-bis anyway, no matter whether the IETF wags their fingers at them or not.

> So, now we're making more 1918 space? This is a good idea... how? If we need more 1918 space, let's do so
[WEG] I think it provides a window of opportunity - get in before the place gets busy. Hopefully by the time people have really adopted the space for 1918-type uses, working IPv4 CGN will be of less relevance... or at least that's what I'm telling myself. This just acknowledges what people believe to be the case instead of trying to deny that it'll happen.

Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:59:25 -0500

> I thought (IIRC, and maybe I'm spacing) the whole reason for

+1 on this and Brian's comment. 

While I still support this draft, the wording in section 4 is probably too 
soft and reduces a lot the usefulness of this adressing space. 

/JFT

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:14:07 -0600

> [WEG] yes, but the general sense I got from the ensuing discussion was that no one expects anyone to actually adhere to that advice (ie MUST NOT be used as substitute for 1918 space), and as soon a…

Speaking as one of the bozos^h^h^h^h^h ADs whose comments (and suggested 
text) ended the document up here, let me suggest the slightly less 
pessimistic view from Wes's, and the reason that I think this 
*shouldn't* specifically update 1918:

This *is* a special use address block that is akin to 1918. It is 
non-routable address space, just like 1918. But unlike 1918, this block 
is defined as "might be used by your ISP on your outside interface". So, 
people using it inside their networks (which, I agree with Wes, will 
happen, and like everything else on the net, will be done stupidly by 
some) have been told that this is *not* private use space and that they 
use it at their own risk and their CGN service might stop working if 
they use it in a way not described in this document. But I'd hate for us 
to allocate space to "CGNs only" when it's obvious that this can be used 
for a whole class of these sorts of things, and can be used by other 
people who build sane equipment that understands "shared" addresses can 
appear on two different interfaces. These aren't "private" addresses a 
la 1918, they're "shared", so it's not an addition to that space. Let's 
properly document what it is we're doing, giving people fair warnings.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 08:38:22 +1300

Hi Pete,

On 2012-02-01 08:14, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> [WEG] yes, but the general sense I got from the ensuing discussion was
>> that no one expects anyone to actually adhere to that advice (ie MUST
>> NOT be used as substitute for 1918 space), and as soon as the space is
>> released, it'll be "cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria..."
>> because everyone and their cousin will start using it as 1918-bis
>> anyway, no matter whether the IETF wags their fingers at them or not.

I have no doubt that this space will be (mis)used as additional
private ambiguous address space. But IMHO the text should make it
clear that this is the wrong way to use it and give the reasons
why - basically the same information as in the new text, but stated
exactly the other way round. For example

     Shared Address Space is IPv4 address space designated for Service
     Provider use with the purpose of facilitating CGN deployment.
     Shared Address Space is not intended to be used as additional [RFC1918]
     space, because either or both of the following issues might arise:

     o  Shared Address Space could also be used on the Service Provider side
        of the CPE, with overlapping subnet or host addresses.

     o  Some CPE routers behave incorrectly when using the same address block on
        both the internal and external interfaces.

> properly document what it is we're doing, giving people fair warnings.

Exactly, hence my suggested text above.

   Brian