On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 10:30:23AM +0000, Jim Reid wrote: > No Ed, they're ambiguous. Paul's right. Consider two companies each > of whom use 10/8 on their intranets.
Surely, to the extent they're ambiguous, they're ambiguous by design. RFC 1918 addresses are supposed to have local scope. If you have changed the meaning of "local" without resolving the conflicts in the scope of two former meanings of "local", that's an operator error. If what people are saying is, "RFC 1918 addresses are bad because they leak past the local boundaries sometimes," fine. I have to agree with Ed, though, that hacking up the DNS to solve a problem that is not strictly a DNS issue is a mistake. It might be, however, that guidelines for routing or for how to connect RFC 1918-addressed hosts to other hosts are needed. Those don't seem to be DNS issues, though. A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 416 646 3304 x4110 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
