Re: [sig-policy] report on prop-058: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use
(# as one of co-author of this proposal)
Please allow me to convey the proposers' view as below.
Randy Bush wrote (2008/02/05 18:14):
Dear SIG members
Below is a summary of discussion on the proposal to date. We
encourage you to continue discussion on the mailing list before
Posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 28 January 2008
Number of posts: 3
Number of people participating in discussions: 3
Economy of origin of participants: 1 from Australia
1 from Nepal
1 from Zealand
Summary of discussion to date
- This proposal and the IPv6 ULA addresses concept are similar.
- Networks in other regions are likely to want to use this shared
space. How could APNIC restrict use of the shared use addresses
to the Asia Pacific region?
- If the addresses were to be used globally, then the proposal
should perhaps be an IETF or IANA proposal.
Since this proposal achieved our local (Japan) open policy meeting
we are proposing this to APNIC as a next step.
If the other regions have same needs, and the consensus reached in the
relevant region, the same address space could be used in the same manner
in the other region.
If this proposal reached consensus it could be presented (introduced?) to
the other region and/or IETF/IANA.
I would like to refer to the process used in the implementation of
IPv6 documentation prefix. Can someone explain that process?
- There would be the same problem of address collisions in the
proposed shared use addresses as there are in RFC 1918
In typical way of use, this address would be assigned to outside of
home NAT, and RFC1918 address would be used inside of home NAT. This
proposed address should be managed by LIR so at least in the same LIR
address collision would not occur.
(I would appreciate if you could refer to the slide #3 at the URL below,
where you can see a picture of the configuration)
If an end-user use this proposed address in its network inside the home
NAT it will make collision, but that is wrong use.
- It is unlikely that 'Redesignation of 240/4 from "Future Use"
to "Limited Use for Large Private Internets"' will happen as
it would require major infrastructure changes.
That's one of the reason we are proposing this address.
- Expanding private use addresses by designating one /8 as
'shared use' would increase pressure on the remaining IPv4 free
It is true that the free pool diminishes by one /8 but more than that
amount can be saved.
- If global uniqueness in addressing is desirable, LIRs should
help with the transition to IPv6.
We do not need global uniqueness, but need uniqueness in user/LIR network.
We do understand that IPv6 is necessary if we need continuous global
uniqueness. We can help with the transition to IPv6 to use both IPv6 global
address and this address (dual-stack) in transition period.
- This proposal only delays the point at which decision makers
realise the situation is critical and results in a far smaller
timeframe in which to transition to IPv6.
We think this proposal is for soft-landing to transition to ipv6.
thanks and best regards,
Full details of the proposal can be found at:
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net