On Nov 9, 2003, at 1:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Alain Durand wrote:
On Nov 3, 2003, at 5:12 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:In the case in point, there is a significant constituency who believes
that they need a replacement for site local addresses, and that
"draft-hinden" is a reasonable way to obtain this replacement. You are
indeed free to not use such addresses and never deploy them within the
networks that you manage, but that does not change the needs of others.
In principle, I would almost agree with this statement, with one caveat:
"... as long as it does not break anything in the global Internet for
people that do not use this proposal"
As I explain in a previous message, this last property is not verified by the hinden/haberman draft, as when those addresses leak, they would create untraceable problems, very similar to the one caused by RFC1918 leaks today.
Q: Who is to blame and likely to be a victim?
A: any ISP without ingress filtering.
Did you never heard about the AS112 project as an example of how much
trouble RFC1918 can cause?
http://www.as112.net/
With that regard, as hinden/haberman addresses are not resolvable in the reverse tree DNS,
they will cause exactly the same issue as RF1918.
- Alain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
