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