Re: WG Last Call draft-ietf-v6ops-nap*

[Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>]

On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 11:30 +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 12:54:15PM +0300, Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki) wrote:
> > 
> > 2) Section 2.6: The section nicely explains the situation with the IPv4
> > address space. However, I have recently met misunderstanding of the size
> > of the private address space. There seems to be a belief out there that
> > private address space is limitless. 
> > Would it be appropriate to add some words to address this issue as well?
> > (E.g. "Even the use of private (RFC1918) IPv4 address space has its
> > practical limits. Especially, in large network environments the private
> > address space can be exhausted resulting to difficult or even impossible
> > operational problems") I'm not sure, though, if it is appropriate in
> > this particular section.
> 
> Good point.  I think this issue should be stressed somewhere.  
>  
> Tim

I agree that this is an excellent point.  And not just a theoretical
point - I understand that some enterprises have exhausted the addresses
available in 10.0.0.0/8 and must resort to engineering solutions like
internal NAT.

- Ralph