[eliot lear] > Having had my name on RFC 1918, I think understand some of the issues.
forgive them, eliot. my name is on ULA-G but a lot of people (including you, for example) still assume that i don't understand all of the issues. > RFC 1918 not being unique meant that providers really had no choice about > blocking it, and IANA had no method to insert reverse addresses to a > particular site. it's true about iana, but i still don't see that blocking 1918 is universal. here's the packet and byte count on hkg1a.f.root-servers.net's rfc1918 rules, 38 days since the last counter reset. i can add it all up from all 100+ f-root servers, but hong kong seems pretty representative. 00600 328489 22366217 deny ip from 10.0.0.0/8 to any in 00700 64258 4284170 deny ip from 172.16.0.0/12 to any in 00800 18840507 1240700651 deny ip from 192.168.0.0/16 to any in as the contributor of the DNS-related paragraph near the end of RFC 1918 section 5, i can tell you that whatever the RFC says will only be a general hint to operators and implementors, who will proceed to do whatever they darn well want. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
