Subject: PE-CE addressing draft

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:38:14 +0200

This is to inform you that the draft-guichard-pe-ce-addr has been updated :
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-guichard-pe-ce-addr-02.txt
I invite you to read through this new version and give your feedback to the
list.

The main motivation for this proposal is to simplify the Service Providers
operations in the scenario where they monitor CE-PE links, and/or CE
routers, while at the same time conserving IPV4 address space.
Large Service Providers such as Equant, ATT and Arcor are supporting this
draft and are requesting that it becomes a working group document.

Vincent Parfait
Equant

---

From: "LIAN Franklin FTLD/IAP" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:11:55 -0400

This message represents my personal opinions only.

I agree that it makes sense to ask all SPs use the same IP pool for
allocating addresses to PE-CE links and CE router loopback.

In the draft, there is no detail information regarding which /8 IP
block will be reserved, and I assume the /8 will come from an 
unassinged registered IP space.  It will be great if IANA can approve
such a /8 request because it makes the SP's life much easier.

However, without the new /8 block approval, I think we may still get
around the address problem with alternative solutions.

In the current practice of allocating IP addresses from [RFC-1918] to 
the PE-CE link, the SP has to negoicate with the customer to see which 
private IP blocks from [RFC-1918] have been implemented in the 
customer's network and avoid those blocks by assinging IP from other 
private IP blocks.  To do this, the SP has reserved several private IP 
blocks from [FRC-1918], and switch from one block to another when 
conflicts are found between the SP and customer.

I think the same practice can be applied to the draft.  Instead of 
allocating one /8 block, two /8 blocks can be recommended, and these
/8 blocks do not have to be approved by IANA.  For example, a SP can
pickup 1.0.0.0/8 and 100.0.0.0/8 for the IP provisioning.  If one
customer does not fit in 1.0.0.0/8, the SP can use the IP from 
100.0.0.0/8 for the customer.

Well, I still like to have one dedicated /8 registered IP from IANA.
I guess we can live without one.

Zidan

---

From: "LIAN Franklin FTLD/IAP" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:31:52 -0400

Greetings,

In the draft, there is no detail information regarding which /8 IP
block will be reserved, and I assume the /8 will come from an 
unassigned registered IP space.  It will be great if IANA can approve
such a /8 request because it makes the SP's life much easier.

In the current practice of allocating IP addresses from [RFC-1918] to 
the PE-CE link, the SP has to negociate with the customer to see which 
private IP blocks from [RFC-1918] have been implemented in the 
customer's network and avoid those blocks by assigning IP from other 
private IP blocks.  To do this, the SP has reserved several private IP 
blocks from [RFC1918], and switch from one block to another when 
conflicts are found between the SP and customer.

Zidan