On 12-02-14 3:49 PM, "Randy Bush" <ra...@psg.com> wrote:
>> 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. Sure, but with a well known address range, it's not just what one AS leaks.. The other AS(s) can also block incoming. That's one of the benefits of a well known space for this. For squat, good luck figuring out who is using what from where. Victor K > >randy >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
