Subject: [BEHAVE] Expand "RFC 1918" things into the SP space?

From: Jacni Qin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:33:21 +0800

Dear chairs and others,

seeing some 44 NATs used in SP space discussed,
may i ask that is there any conclusion of whether the IETF should address
this?

i remember back to the co-existence interim meeing last year, this point was
ever metioned.

or maybe i missed something?

quite appreciate if someone could give me the clarification.

-Jacni

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:23:13 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jacni Qin
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 1:33 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [BEHAVE] Expand "RFC 1918" things into the SP space?
> 
> Dear chairs and others,
> 
> may i ask that is there any conclusion of whether the IETF 
> should address this?

No conclusion yet.

> i remember back to the co-existence interim meeing last year, 
> this point was ever metioned.
> 

In the IETF, there are at least three I-Ds on the topic
(draft-shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr, draft-shirasaki-isp-shared-addr-02,
draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues-00) and there have been at least 3
presentations to some different working groups.

> quite appreciate if someone could give me the clarification.

It is my understanding that Akira Nagakawa is presenting on the
topic of SP-operated NAT44 devices in "Summarized story about 
NAT444" for 15 minutes at Thursday's OPSAREA open meeting, and
I believe his presentation will discuss

  http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/75/opsarea.html

-d

---

From: Jacni Qin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:32:45 +0800

hi Dan,

> > may i ask that is there any conclusion of whether the IETF

thanks a lot for your clarification..

-Jacni