I'll file this in the place where I put things that might need fixing
in RFC 3056 one of these years. Let's move on for now; we can argue about
the exact words when the time comes.
Brian
Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
> > > > RFC 3056 says:
> > > >
> > > > Suppose that a subscriber site has at least one valid, globally
> > > > unique 32-bit IPv4 address, referred to in this document as
> > > > V4ADDR. This address MUST be duly allocated to the site by an
> > > > address registry (possibly via a service provider) and it MUST
> > > > NOT be a private address [RFC 1918].
> > > >
> > > > Now, which word in "MUST NOT" is hard to understand?
> > >
> > > well, we don't say that hosts should block them.
> >
> > IMHO that would the wrong thing to do. The hosts should not care
> > whether the prefix they're autoconfiguring from is from 2002::/16 or
> > some other block. They don't implement 6to4, so making them care
> > would seem like a layer violation.
>
> things that make no sense should be filtered, just like packets sourced
> from a broadcast address.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM
NEW ADDRESS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
