Re: [sig-policy] prop-058: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use address space among LIRs

["Hall, Barrie J" <Barrie.J.Hall@team.telstra.com>]

David,

A /16 won't quite work for us, in a fail-over scenario I could see up to
300,000 subs in a single PoP. Of course I could probably re-use within
the PoP, so I could live with a /14 or /12?

Barrie

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

In offline discussions, it has been pointed out that the biggest issue  
with prop-58 is the size of the allocation (/8).

With service provider NAT and other transition techniques, is there  
the option of re-use of IP addresses within a single carrier's  
network? Could we use a shared /16 instead?


Thoughts?

-d

On 14/02/2008, at 12:00 AM, David Miles wrote:

> 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
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management  
> policy           *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy