Re: [Int-area] discussion of the ISP shared address idea

[Shin Miyakawa <miyakawa at nttv6.jp>]

First of all, thank you very much Gregory and Brian for your good clarifications.

From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] discussion of the ISP shared address idea
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:48:41 +1200

> A NAT that doesn't treat the two address contexts as logically
> disjoint is broken IMHO. Of course, 10.0.0.12B (like every
> address in Context B) is totally inaccessible from Context A.
> But the Context B side of the CPE NAT will use 10.0.0.12B
> as its default router.

Yep. That's what I'd like to say exactly. 

> It's certainly horrible, but when you run out of addresses,
> what else can you expect?

Yes, this is certainly horrible. That's also what I'd like to repeat too.

So, That's the reason why we should have another address space 
to be shared by ISPs which are going to introduce CGN in their networks 
to ease the pain.

Otherwise, every ISP may be going to RIR to get another space for each for this purpose
(simply because they can not remove global Pv4 assignment off from exisiting customers),
and IPv4 is running out very quickly in this case.

As one of strong IPv6 promotors on the Earth, maybe I should push this 
way to complete IPv4 address assignment as soon as possible, 
but, still we need to gain some period to let vendors complete CGN implementation.

Best reFrom int-area-bounces at ietf.org  Mon Aug  4 20:52:29 2008
Return-Path: <int-area-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: int-area-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-int-area-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D9903A6A9D;
	Mon,  4 Aug 2008 20:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: int-area at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96BA428C0FE
	for <int-area at core3.amsl.com>; Mon,  4 Aug 2008 20:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id Rv5V+KPRPg69 for <int-area at core3.amsl.com>;
	Mon,  4 Aug 2008 20:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gura.nttv6.jp (gura.nttv6.jp [IPv6:2001:218:1f01:2::2])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676533A68F3
	for <int-area at ietf.org>; Mon,  4 Aug 2008 20:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from z.nttv6.jp (z.nttv6.jp [IPv6:2001:218:1f01:1::26])
	by gura.nttv6.jp (NTTv6MTA) with ESMTP id A64D7BDC20
	for <int-area at ietf.org>; Tue,  5 Aug 2008 12:52:52 +0900 (JST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.nttv6.jp [IPv6:::1])
	by z.nttv6.jp (NTTv6MTA) with ESMTP id 803516EFF6
	for <int-area at ietf.org>; Tue,  5 Aug 2008 12:52:52 +0900 (JST)
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:52:52 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20080805.125252.193756904.miyakawa at nttv6.jp>
To: int-area at ietf.org
From: Shin Miyakawa <miyakawa at nttv6.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4897BF89.3000800 at gmail.com>
References: <20080804.111743.226746007.miyakawa at nttv6.jp>
	<48969271.1e068e0a.698c.fffffddc at mx.google.com>
	<4897BF89.3000800 at gmail.com>
Organizaton: NTT Communications
X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Int-area] discussion of the ISP shared address idea
X-BeenThere: int-area at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>,
	<mailto:int-area-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/int-area>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>,
	<mailto:int-area-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: int-area-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: int-area-bounces at ietf.org

First of all, thank you very much Gregory and Brian for your good clarifications.

From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] discussion of the ISP shared address idea
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:48:41 +1200

> A NAT that doesn't treat the two address contexts as logically
> disjoint is broken IMHO. Of course, 10.0.0.12B (like every
> address in Context B) is totally inaccessible from Context A.
> But the Context B side of the CPE NAT will use 10.0.0.12B
> as its default router.

Yep. That's what I'd like to say exactly. 

> It's certainly horrible, but when you run out of addresses,
> what else can you expect?

Yes, this is certainly horrible. That's also what I'd like to repeat too.

So, That's the reason why we should have another address space 
to be shared by ISPs which are going to introduce CGN in their networks 
to ease the pain.

Otherwise, every ISP may be going to RIR to get another space for each for this purpose
(simply because they can not remove global Pv4 assignment off from exisiting customers),
and IPv4 is running out very quickly in this case.

As one of strong IPv6 promotors on the Earth, maybe I should push this 
way to complete IPv4 address assignment as soon as possible, 
but, still we need to gain some period to let vendors complete CGN implementation.

Best regards,

gards,

Shin Miyakawa


_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area


Shin Miyakawa


_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area