Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)]

Rob Seastrom rs at seastrom.com
Mon May 5 19:42:04 UTC 2014


Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> writes:

>> Ah, so you're in the camp that a /10 given to one organization for
>> their private use would have been better than reserving that /10 for
>> _everyone_ to use. We'll have to agree to disagree there.
>
> you forced an rfc allocation.  that makes public space, and is and will
> be used as such.  you wanted an 'owned' allocation that you and your
> friends control, you shoulda gone to the rirs.

Usually I manage to keep the Strangelove hand in check and not feed
the troll, but the matter was raised (at least in the ARIN region).

https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_5.html

I believe that the arguments that shared transition space were IETF's
purview were compelling.  I'm no fan of non-globally-unique space in
general, but forcing the RFC route was the least-worst route for
things to move forward.

Randy, I trust that you're also vigorously advocating people's use of
UK-MOD-19850128 (aka net 25) as "just more 1918 space" inside their
organizations too?  After all, it's what I encourage *my* competitors to do.

-r



More information about the NANOG mailing list