Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ``Router manufacturers MUST ensure that said black hole cannot be deconfigured,
> turned off, or otherwise overridden in toto;''
|It's very simple. No sane router vendor would do this.
I pointed out in my original comments that most router vendors have little
incentive to abide by such a rule. So far. But that doesn't mean that they
won't find some reason in the future. Moreover, entities building appliances
with incidental router functionality may be unfamiliar with the issues and
might follow the rule as written. The result is that the new addresses become
devalued because you can't count on being able to configure all your network
devices to use them.
Why do we want to make a rule that no sane router vendor should follow?
|The MUST can only apply to default configuration.
But that's not at all what the language actually says. Why do we need to
play such word games? It reminds me of politicians who say: ``We really
need a law against common behavior x. But don't worry. It doesn't really
mean that we will stop you from doing x. And besides, such a restriction would
be unenforceable.'' Then after the next election: ``It's really hard to enforce
the law against x. We really need to ban y and z to make sure people can't do
x. After all, some previous set of elected politicians decided to make a law
against x, so we have a duty to enforce it.''
Dan Lanciani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
