Re: [sig-policy] report on prop-058: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use
- To: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] report on prop-058: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use address space among LIRs
- From: Alastair Johnson <aj at sneep dot net>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:21:51 +1100
- Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net, Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp>
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <47B1349B.20502 at psg dot com>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <47A8290F.email@example.com> <47B13231.firstname.lastname@example.org> <47B1349B.email@example.com>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 188.8.131.52 (Windows/20071031)
Randy Bush wrote:
as co-chair, i was really shy to scream at this, but since you opened the gate :)o this is just ula-c which has been killed in the ietf and died in every other rir o what if i need triple nat, shall we throw away another /8? o use ipv6!
I agree with Randy. prop-058 isn't solving the problem and isn't the best way forwards.
For IPv6 transitional space or service provider NAT, I would recommend (strongly) following the Class E draft through and allowing it to be used for this purpose. Alternatively, implement a decent NAT stack that allows for the same RFC1918 addresses on each side (BEHAVE working group).
I do not support prop-058. aj