On 2007-06-28 10:46, Per Heldal wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 10:12 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-06-27 13:54, Per Heldal wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 23:48 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
If we want to issue address space to folks for "private" use, it needs to be
out of the same block(s) that the RIRs use to allocate space for "public"
use, because sooner or later those "private" networks are going to end up
being publicly routed.
But if we do this shouldn't we also take steps to prevent abuse
(hijacking etc) of those "private" blocks.
No, I don't think so. ULAs are for local use. We provide a mechanism
to ensure that they are extremely likely to be unique, but as long as
they are used locally, and confined locally both by routing and by
DNS, it actually doesn't matter operationally if someone else uses the
same prefix in their local area.
I wasn't talking about ULA at all, but about an attempt to limit abuse
of PI or even PA space whenever such blocks are allocated but not
announced externally. Whether allocated PI is used for private purposes
by accident or intentionally doesn't matter in that respect. ULA is no
problem as it's trivial to block all of it with one single
config-statement.
Then we agree, but please change the Subject when you change the subject :-)
Brian
The rest of my rant was about my wish to formalise and automate the
relation between allocation policies and operational practises. I.e. why
keep pretending registry-policies have nothing to do with routing when
so many IDRs in the DFZ has a config full of stuff derived from those
policies?
//per
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
