Randy Bush writes: > in response to me: > > 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. > > and the packets will be very ashamed, right? > > we can say all the crap we want, but it will be used as 1918 > space and, like 1918 space, bgp announcesments of it will leak. > get over it.
And that's fine -- on a per-operator basis -- they chose their path. What we're trying to avoid by explicitly NOT marking this as RFC-1918 space is VENDORS using it inside their equipment, thereby negating the entire practical use of the space. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
