Re: [sig-policy] prop-058: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use address sp
(#as a co-author of this proposal)
> During our eventual transition to IPv6, I forsee a need to perform a
> "double NAT" in the network. Given that service providers have no
This proposal is exactly for providing "double NAT" service. Thank you
for saying what we would like to say.
Hall, Barrie J wrote (2008/02/12 13:00):
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
Yes, I support this proposal.
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
tell the community about your situation.
During our eventual transition to IPv6, I forsee a need to perform a
"double NAT" in the network. Given that service providers have no
control over what RFC 1918 space an end user may use, I see a need for
some extra "shared space" as detailed in this proposal (which CPE
manufacturers agree never to use on their devices)
It is also clear to me that many organisations have "run out of options"
in terms of existing RFC 1918 space and that they are using public space
for private addressing. This is obviously very wasteful, this proposal
would address this issue at a global level.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
No, not really, it reduces the available global pool by 1/43rd, but I
believe the benefits of allocating this space far outweigh this small
loss in available pool.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net