Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] informal WGLC for Additional Private IPv4 Space Issues

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:55:24 +0200

Hi Leo,

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Leo Vegoda [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Envoyé : jeudi 24 juin 2010 20:07
> À : CAUCHIE Gregory RD-CORE-ISS
> Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Marla Azinger
> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] informal WGLC for Additional Private 
> IPv4 Space Issues
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Thanks for your comment and sorry for the delay in replying 
> but we have both been ill.
 
No problem ! Hope you recovered well.

> While we agree that some networks might want to use Link 
> Local addresses in this context, we are concerned that a 
> discussion about its use in the context of core router links 
> is probably too fine a level of detail and operational 
> practice for this document. We are trying to document issues 
> faced by providers whose networks connect so many millions of 
> devices that they have exhausted the RFC 1918 address space. 
> In that context we are trying to concentrate on the various 
> options providers have for numbering millions of interfaces 
> rather than a small number of interfaces on core routers.

I agree that the gain would then be really low. I wonder then if your document would not then benefit for just stating this for the sake of completeness.
 
> Kind regards,
> Marla & Leo

Regards,

--
Greg