Paul Vixie wrote: >>> 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. >> Can we then not make the very simple conclusion that ULA's will be >> routed on the Internet and such are nothing else but an alternative for >> "PI"? > > no. i showed you packet leaks, not route leaks. (did i misunderstand the > minimum technical skillset nec'y for participation on this mailing list?)
Sorry, but not everybody is fluent in the language of the networking gods. I am pretty sure that you understood that I mean with it that these packets are being routed, that is forwarded, over several routers. Clearly the networks that are between your example site and the sender don't employ any filtering at all, clearly all of your upstreams don't do this either, though that might be simply because you will claim that that is for 'research purposes' (which is a noble cause as otherwise we would not be able to tell that these packets even exist). As you mention indeed the RFC1918 routes are mostly being filtered, at least most of the time. Check for instance RIPE's RIS which clearly shows that RFC1918 leaks do occur. Indeed that doesn't make it globally routed, but that they exist and happen says enough. To illustrate my point, before being told again that I have to have a 'minimal skilset' and that they are not leaked, see the following: http://www.ris.ripe.net/perl-risapp/prefixinuse.do?rrc_id=1000&Submit=Submit&.submit=type&sortby=time&outype=html&preftype=mspec&interval=1&prefix=10.0.0.0/8 8<--------------------------------------------------------------------- The last announcement occurred on 2007-07-05 08:31:00Z. 44 entries are found for 10.0.0.0/8. Prefix Last announced ↓ Origin AS 10.20.90.0/24 2007-06-12 09:12:16Z 23352 10.250.250.0/24 2007-06-12 09:12:16Z 23352 10.43.0.0/16 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.120.0.0/16 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.215.0.0/16 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.35.0.0/16 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.90.0.0/16 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.121.0.0/16 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.11.0.0/16 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.138.0.0/16 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.64.12.0/24 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.75.0.0/16 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.129.0.0/16 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.3.2.0/24 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.139.0.0/16 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.38.0.0/16 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.123.0.0/16 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.74.0.0/16 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.41.0.0/16 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.76.0.0/16 2007-06-22 05:21:58Z 8402 10.69.43.0/24 2007-06-27 22:09:56Z 5410 10.69.42.0/24 2007-06-27 22:09:56Z 5410 10.2.3.40/29 2007-06-28 07:05:27Z 8402 10.0.0.16/30 2007-06-28 10:00:39Z 2819 10.0.0.0/30 2007-06-28 10:00:39Z 2819 10.0.0.20/30 2007-06-28 10:00:39Z 2819 10.0.0.4/30 2007-06-28 10:00:39Z 2819 10.0.0.12/30 2007-06-28 10:00:39Z 2819 10.0.0.8/30 2007-06-28 10:00:39Z 2819 10.10.0.0/20 2007-06-29 04:05:58Z 8402 10.221.0.0/16 2007-06-29 04:05:58Z 8402 10.227.0.0/16 2007-06-29 11:50:19Z 8402 10.222.60.0/24 2007-06-29 11:50:19Z 8402 10.222.81.0/24 2007-06-29 11:50:19Z 8402 10.181.0.0/16 2007-06-29 11:50:19Z 8402 10.130.0.0/16 2007-06-29 11:50:19Z 8402 10.13.0.0/16 2007-06-29 11:50:19Z 8402 10.69.191.0/24 2007-07-03 15:01:27Z 5410 10.69.192.0/24 2007-07-03 15:01:27Z 5410 10.193.14.64/27 2007-07-05 08:31:00Z 34245 10.11.12.0/24 2007-07-05 08:31:00Z 34245 10.193.14.32/27 2007-07-05 08:31:00Z 34245 10.193.3.0/24 2007-07-05 08:31:00Z 34245 10.11.13.0/24 2007-07-05 08:31:00Z 34245 --------------------------------------------------------------------->8 Now please state again that people should have a 'minimal skillset'. Thank you for your attention. >> As I mentioned before, it should not be called "Local" in any form, as it >> will never be "Local", unless the definition of "Local" is only Earth, and >> does not include Mars and other planets, yet. > > if we're down to the label engineering, then everything hard is now done? or > are you making a funny that's intended to show absurdity somewhere? Unique Local Addresses-Global <--- Local Global? Very good naming. And it won't be local anyway as it is primarily intended to most likely interconnect to other sites, and at that from the few examples given to a very large amount of sites, similar to "PI" space. > in any case i called it "local" in ULA-G because i was stealing wholesale from > ULA-C (and i suspect they called it "local" because they were stealing from > ULA). if you propose a term other than "private" (which is taken by RFC 1918) > that means "non-public" in the sense meant by ULA-G and ULA-C and ULA, there > might be great rejoicing. As I mentioned before, but clearly you missed out on, it is "Non-DFZ" or "non-globaly-routed" maybe, as that is what, from what I understand from the minimal amount of actual descriptions of what this address space is going to be intended for, is the actual use. Those cases and descriptions & examples of how this type of addresses might actually be used are very welcome to be described in the draft btw. As that would actually illustrate why exactly these addresses are needed. Also having them in the draft allows one to actually discuss them. Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
