I've got the last 2 decades of experience trying to deal with security on the
network.
95% is dealing with the peculiarities of the bolt-on after-thoughts.
I would much prefer seeing security designed-in, with the flexibility to deal
with
the future...
Randy Bush speaketh:
in reply to: Nick Hilliard
It's a quintessential bike-shed problem. The only reason
that people are moaning about it so much is that they understand
the concept of address allocation.
exactly. they understand the concept. and, like many things
where the surface
Randy Bush respondeth...
Who gets to decide who the experts are?
i listen the folk actually implementing and actually using. i also
listen to researchers with expertise in the field. the ietf
politicians
are already in my ~/.procmailrc. you are welcome to listen
to whom you
wish.
Pete Resnick wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. There was some
objection at the beginning of this thread by Wes George, Noel
Chiappa, and Brian Carpenter. I agreed that the document
could be misunderstood as encouraging the use of the space as
1918 space and proposed
Randy Bush writes:
in response to Pete Resnick, who wrote:
Do you, or do you not, object to the proposed change that
changes the text from saying, This space may be used just
as 1918 space to This space has limitations and cannot be
used as 1918 space?
what silliness. it will be used as
Randy Bush writes:
in response to me:
In that I completely agree with what Randy is saying, the point
that needs to be made is that this should not be officially
sanctioned as RFC-1918 space -- no manufacturer or programmer
should treat this netblock the same.
If some fly-by-night
