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: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:02:37 -0500 (EST)

> From: Nilsson <[email-masked]>

    > Address translation has set the state of consumer computing back
    > severely.

We basically all know that. I myself am not happy with NAT either - in
fact, back in 1992 (!!) I myself wrote what was perhaps the first
"problems with NAT document". So?

    > Allocating CGN-blessing address space is a clear violation of this.

You seem to be operating under the illusion that the IETF has the power to
actually do something about NAT, and more particularly, CGNAT. This is not
correct. No action by the IETF will have the slightest affect on the
deployment of CGNAT (and probably the amount of CGNAT deployment).

The notion that 'IETF blessing' will make any _real_ difference at all is
complete wrong. The IETF's blessing (or failure to do so), and an
appropriate amount of local currency, will get you a cup of coffee, as
they say...

In reality, the _only_ choice the IETF has is between:

- Deploy CGNAT with messy ad-hoc assigned addresses (squatting, whatever)
- Deploy CGNAT with an assigned address block

Given those two choices, I pick the second.

	Noel

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:29:27 -0800

>- Deploy CGNAT with an assigned address block

There is an IPR disclosure on file for RFC 6264 (Informative 
reference).  There is an IPR disclosure which may be related to one 
of the services mentioned in Section 5.2 of the 
draft.  draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-05 discusses about common 
requirements for Carrier Grade NATs.  An IPR disclosure was filed.

The IPv4 address pool status is as follows:

                  IPv4 /8
  RIR Pool          18
  Reserved (IETF)   35
  Unadvertised      53
  Advertised       149

Research carried out in 2008 listed unofficial use of the following (IPv4) /8s:

  1, 2, 5, 14, 23, 39, 42, 100, 101, 107, 175 and 176

All those IPv4 /8s are currently allocated to RIRs.

Is an IPv4 address block assignment necessary for 
draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-05?

Regards,
-sm