Alain Durand wrote: > > 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.
If they are referred outside their context, sure. But that problem can arise for any form of privately used addresses, however they are assigned - if nobody puts them in the public reverse tree, they will cause problems. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
