On 5 dec 2007, at 16:27, Eliot Lear wrote:
* Nothing
* Make the space a compile time option
* Make the space a configuration option
* Just turn it on
Dave is of the opinion that doing the latter (or having default
enabled
for the middle two) is akin to inviting the sorts of security concerns
that have been raised about v6 deployment.
Can anyone point me to the RFC that states that IP stacks are supposed
to be unable to use this space? This is quickly deteriorating into
silliness if we need positive proof that this space is useful and
secure before vendors are willing to remove obstacles against its use
that, in my opinion, were never supposed to be there in the first place.
Having said that, it looks like telling people to remove the blocks
and then think about a use for this space is probably not going to be
a workable way forward. For the purposes of 6to4 and possibly others,
it's important to know whether this will be private or public space.
We know it probably can't be "real" public space because there will
always be boxes that will filter it, but there's still a difference
between public-with-practical-limitations and private-by-design. In
reality, it's probably going to be space for some very specific
purpose that doesn't easily fit into our public/private dichotomy.
I am less concerned about security considerations in this particular
case, since devices could send packets with 240/4 sources or
destinations NOW.
Right. Or any other source or destination, for that matter. How would
receiving a 240/4 packet be worse than any other packet?
Alain Durand raised concerns that devoting resources to making 240/4
available, while others at the same time said they needed the space
now
for private purposes in a controlled environment. I would like to
re-iterate what I said in the meeting, speaking for myself: there is
no
Plan B. We need to go to IPv6. The only question for me is how do we
transition in an orderly and responsible fashion?
In my opinion, the 240/4 and IPv6 issues are mostly orthogonal. They
only come together in as far as that keeping 7% of the IPv4 address
space "reserved" and then running out is very bad PR. The 240/4 block
won't be useful for regular applications and even if it were,
increasing the pool of free IPv4 addresses by 25% won't make the IPv4
depletion issue go away, it just postpones the inevitable. A little.
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
