Hi Leo,

I support this document and think it's important and very well written.
I do have some overall comments and a couple of editorial suggestions:

At a high level, the document is arguing that with no more IANA
unallocated /8s, then existing corresponding filters should be removed,
and then lists special purpose prefixes that should not be router in the
Internet. I think that the document could benefit from making a stricter
classification of "bogons" from the Intro onwards, into "unallocated"
and "martian"; then, "martian filters" do not change, but "unallocated"
do (as continuously do, but now there is a notable milestone). These
unallocated prefix filers now need to be larger than /8, but there is
still value in filtering RIRs unallocated. So there is a choice of
whether no longer filter based on address allocation status at all, or
do it with finer granularity, with pros and cons. I think that the
document should contain the final state (martians only) but list pros
and cons of the transition (filter or not RIR unallocated prefixes). I
do not want to suggest overcomplicating the document, as its simplicity
is a plus, though.

On the more editorial side, I think that perhaps slightly more emphasis
on the fact that this is filtering on the "source" (even on the title)
can prevent potential confusions. Similarly, a note of caution as to the
application of filters (as some of the blocks can "appear", but not be
Internet-routed.

My 2ยข. Thanks !

-- Carlos.

On 2/3/2011 9:40 AM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have just uploaded draft-vegoda-no-more-unallocated-slash8s-00 to the I-D 
> repository and have been advised to mention it on OPSEC and GROW, so that it 
> can be well reviewed.
>
> This document advises network operators to remove filters for any unicast /8s 
> they previously filtered on the basis of being unallocated. The IANA IPv4 
> Address Space Registry is now fully allocated and so the practice of 
> filtering IPv4 address space based on its registration status is no longer 
> advisable.
>
> Your thoughts and comments are welcome.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Leo Vegoda
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
>
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Reply via email to