On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 12:11:56PM -0500, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2002, 09:03 (-0000) Philip Hazel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I didn't want to put in an explicit list, because people would interpret
> > it to be exhaustive. I was trying in the document to establish a
> > principle, not give a recipe. I don't think this is the place to
> > attempt to list all the private addresses - especially with IPv6 at such
> > an early stage with things changing a lot still. 2 is of course a
> > special case, and I mention some of 3 purely as an example.
>
> IMHO the draft/RFC is useless if it doesn't include an explicit list.
> ....
> I am constantly recommending this list to clients, and it would be useful
> if there was one specific RFC that I could point them to (sort of a
> "drawing a line in the sand"). I'm sure the ISP community would appreciate
> it also.
>
> --tal
beware of explict lists. draft-manning-dsua-07.txt has been
around as a draft for nearly five years. some parties in the
IESG/IAB have squelched its advancement. these are prefixes
that should only be coded in the DNS in specific cases.
It's being updated to include IPv6 ranges as well. I don't
ever expect it to go into Informational RFC status with the
current makeup of the IESG/IAB.
--bill
