Subject: Document Action: 'Issues Associated with Designating Additional Private IPv4 Address Space' to Informational RFC (draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues-05.txt)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 13:40:24 -0700

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Issues Associated with Designating Additional Private IPv4 Address
   Space'
  (draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues-05.txt) as an
Informational RFC

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.

The IESG contact person is Ron Bonica.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues/

Technical Summary

   When a private network or internetwork grows very large it is
   sometimes not possible to address all interfaces using private IPv4
   address space because there are not enough addresses.  This document
   describes the problems faced by those networks, the available options
   and the issues involved in assigning a new block of private IPv4
   address space.

   While this informational document does not make a recommendation for
   action, it documents the issues surrounding the various options that
   have been considered.

Working Group Summary

While this document is not the product of a working group, it was
reviewed and last called in the OPSAREA WG.

Document Quality

This document passed the approval of the OPSAREA WG.

Personnel

Ron Bonica sponsors this document.

RFC Editor Note

1.Change in Section 1 is an addition not a change.
NEW text to end of Section 1:
 "The overall conclusion is that allocating additional address space to be used as private address has severe problems and would, for instance, impact any software or configuration that has built-in assumptions about private address space. However, it is also well understood that cascading NAT deployments in the existing private address space will cause different types of severe problems when address spaces overlap. At this point there is no clear agreement of the likelihood of various problems or the respective trade-offs."

2.Change in Section 5.2:
OLD Text:
the issues discussed in 4.4 could also be

NEW text includes reference to 5.1:
the issues discussed in 4.4 and 5.1 are