Victor Kuarsingh wrote: > > "Randy Bush" <ra...@psg.com> wrote: > > > >> In that I completely agree with what Randy is saying, the point > >> that needs to be made is that this should not be officially > >> sanctioned as RFC-1918 space -- no manufacturer or programmer > >> should treat this netblock the same. > >> > >> If some fly-by-night company chooses to use it on their own, > >> well, then they have chosen to operate outside the bounds of > >> the best-principles - exactly the same as in Randy's example. > > > >and the packets will be very ashamed, right? > > > >we can say all the crap we want, but it will be used as 1918 space and, > >like 1918 space, bgp announcesments of it will leak. get over it. > > Sure, but with a well known address range, it's not just what one AS > leaks.. The other AS(s) can also block incoming. That's one of the > benefits of a well known space for this. > > For squat, good luck figuring out who is using what from where.
Considering the huge amounts of unused IPv4 address space, why is there a need for squat space at all? Out of curiosity, I tried to configure interface addresses from 0/8 or 240/4, but neither my Linux nor my Windows boxen allowed me that. And lots of CPEs are based on Linux. And a lot of that equiment is used _much_ longer than its firmware is maintained by its vendor! Any idea how long it takes to grow such hardwired restrictions out of an installed base? I wish there was more forward thinking among implementors. One can not complain about the squat use of *assigned* space when all of the unassigned address ranges have been made totally unusable by implementors of IPv4 network stacks. -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
