[retronet-core] RFC 6598?

[Grant Taylor]

On 08/29/2018 10:23 PM, John Willis wrote:
> Hello everyone,

Hi,

> Are we still considering using 100.64.0.0/10 addresses for this project?

I am.

> The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. I know that I'm 
> using ranges from every RFC 1918 block in my network, and looking at 
> the purpose of the block, I think RetroNet more than qualifies (in the 
> sense that it's effectively a service provider network--even moreso now 
> since we've basically settled on MPLS over [insert VPN technology here]).

I am confident enough in the use of 100.64.0.0/10 that anyone that 
questions it needs to have good factual reasons why we should not use 
it.  -  I'm happy to have said discussion if need be.  But it's going to 
need strong facts.  One person's opinions likely won't suffice.

I think the only thing that we could do differently that would 
completely eliminate any doubt is to actually do (CG)NAT and provide 
internet access.  But, we want to NOT do that for various reasons.

Other than the lack of NAT, I think we are directly in line with the 
spirit of 100.64.0.0/10 Shared Address Space.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3982 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.chivanet.org/pipermail/retronet-core/attachments/20180830/89d28b76/attachment.bin>