On May 23, 2011 9:37 PM, "Jimmy Hess" <mysi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net> wrote: > > If they do, any Rogers customer who wants to talk to it is screwed. Whether they have a 7 addy or not, Rogers' routers will not let the packet leave Rogers' borders. > > That could depend on whether Rogers' border routers are adequately configured > to block/filter the announcement, and whether whatever the DoD chose to > announce was a longer prefix than what Rogers' equipment had > routes/controls for. > > In theory; there exists a possibility that the DoD could announce a > /24 of something > Rogers' was internally routing as a /16, then if unfiltered the DoD > announce could win, > causing internal (self-inflicted) issues for Rogers. > > The DoD could also eventually use the 7 range for something, resulting > in complaints to Rogers > from users who seem unable to reach (some web site placed in 7/8). > > > Unofficial use of other organization's IP address space is playing with fire. > > > It may mark the symbolic start of a new IPv4, where eventually > many /8s will have tons of unofficial claimaints, and whoever > threatens more, pays the major providers more, or has more lawyers > (take your pick), gets their announcement more widely propagated. > > Sometimes if enough players start playing with fire, a really bad, > uncontrollable inferno eventually gets ignited. >
Or, ipv6 gets deployed and supported since it will be the effective network of networks Cb > > TTFN, > > patrick > -- > -JH >