Re: [sig-policy] report on prop-058: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use
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.