Randy Bush writes: > in response to Pete Resnick, who wrote: >> Do you, or do you not, object to the proposed change that >> changes the text from saying, "This space may be used just >> as 1918 space" to "This space has limitations and cannot be >> used as 1918 space"? > > what silliness. it will be used as rfc 1918 space no matter > what the document > says. > > nine years ago i was in bologna and did a traceroute out. i > was surprised to find that the isp was using un-announced us > military space as rfc 1918 space internal to their network. > this turns out to be common. > > any thought that this is not just adding to rfc 1918 is pure > bs.
In that I completely agree with what Randy is saying, the point that needs to be made is that this should not be officially sanctioned as RFC-1918 space -- no manufacturer or programmer should treat this netblock the same. If some fly-by-night company chooses to use it on their own, well, then they have chosen to operate outside the bounds of the best-principles - exactly the same as in Randy's example. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
