| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
I support this proposal,Service Provider NAT as an example of a transition mechanism may need to make use of IPv4 address space that is organisationally unique. I do not agree that the use of Class E for IPv4 transition is appropriate given the treatment of this as Martian addresses by most equipment - this is limiting the usefulness.
While I believe the best approach is a NAT implementation in the subscriber CPE that supports common address space on both inside and outside (NAT != routing - RFC 4787 Section 4.4 is a must-read for anyone considering SP-NAT) I accept that we need to support existing CPE that simply cannot do this.
The current Class E draft recognises the need for transitional address space, the problem is that Class E has been a no-go for so long it's unlikely to be implemented within a useful timeframe - and especially not for existing CPE.
-David Miles
