Paul Vixie wrote: [..] > 00600 328489 22366217 deny ip from 10.0.0.0/8 to any in > 00700 64258 4284170 deny ip from 172.16.0.0/12 to any in > 00800 18840507 1240700651 deny ip from 192.168.0.0/16 to any in > > as the contributor of the DNS-related paragraph near the end of RFC 1918 > section 5, i can tell you that whatever the RFC says will only be a general > hint to operators and implementors, who will proceed to do whatever they > darn well want.
Can we then not make the very simple conclusion that ULA's will be routed on the Internet and such are nothing else but an alternative for "PI"? As such there is absolutely no reason at all to have this kind of address space for this purpose. Why should the IETF try to play with RIR policies where it's membership chooses if "PI" space becomes available or not? As I mentioned before, it should not be called "Local" in any form, as it will never be "Local", unless the definition of "Local" is only Earth, and does not include Mars and other planets, yet. Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
