Re: [GROW] WGLC: draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores

Exactly! Sorry if I wasn't clear but squatting should be heavily discouraged as many things break that don't break with the use of private space. If you use squatted space you have to do prefix limiting possibly limiting the valid owner from announcing their route(s) to you (or play other better

Re: [GROW] WGLC: draft-ietf-grow-ops-reqs-for-bgp-error-handling-04

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Christopher Morrow wrote: Hello GROW-WG folk, Please take this message as the start of a 2 week, ending 6/25/2012 (June 25, 2012) WGLC for the subject draft, link to current version:

Re: [GROW] WGLC: draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores

Your welcome. I understand not taking a stance on use of priv addresses in the core. I would rather either pull the mention of squat space or recommend against it or explain why it is different then the use of private space. There are elements where that is much worse then the use of rfc1918 spa

Re: [GROW] WGLC: draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores

Using squat/stolen space will mean ICMP messages from the SP core wouldn't be able to reach the legitimate address holder's network but neither would traffic of the customers of that SP. I don't believe that the same is true of "private" space; so there are actually _more_ problems with the "squat

Re: [GROW] WGLC: draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores

Donald, Thanks for the review, I plan to do another update in the next few days, I'm just waiting to see if any further feedback arrives. A couple of specific comments: re - squat space. The intent was not to make recommendations on the practice, just to document the effects. re - 5. Unexp