On Tuesday 14 October 2003 11:36, Jeroen Massar wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Juan Rodriguez Hervella wrote:
SNIP
Do you know what are the problems that *root zone operators* are
experiencing with RFC 1918 addresses ? It would be very interesting
if you could explain
On Saturday 11 October 2003 08:46, Leif Johansson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
snip
| This is based on the assumption that leaking RFC 1918 routing
| information or packets with RFC 1918 source or destination addresses is
| actually
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Juan Rodriguez Hervella wrote:
On Saturday 11 October 2003 08:46, Leif Johansson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
snip
| This is based on the assumption that leaking RFC 1918 routing
| information
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
snip
|
| This is based on the assumption that leaking RFC 1918 routing
| information or packets with RFC 1918 source or destination addresses is
| actually harmful in and of itself. This is a broken assumption. If
Tell that
Hi Fred,
So in the general case I don't see a problem with deprecating
things under the right circumstances, but I do have a problem with
removing them outright. Deprecation doesn't prevent people from using
them, but outright removal can be dangerous. And in this case, the
assertion
No offense, folks, but if you really must have yet another round of
this interminable discussion, could you please trim the cc: list?
Four copies of each message is a bit much. Thanks.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
At 12:55 PM 10/10/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All in all, however, I think outright removal, although short-term more
painful, will be less troublesome than many years of debugging problems
caused by 1918-style leakage of addresses for a deprecated feature.
That may be so. It is a third
So the basic concept is (in my opinion) broken and needs to be
euthanized.
This is based on the assumption that leaking RFC 1918 routing
information or packets with RFC 1918 source or destination addresses is
actually harmful in and of itself.
no, it's based on (among other things)
At 03:03 PM 10/10/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred, I hope that this resolves your technical concern about
this particular case, and I apologize for not making this
distinction clear in my response to Scott.
yes, it does.
In this case, I was responding to an increase in the complexity of the
