I think as long as nobody is announcing this out to the general Internet, this is an interesting proposal. If the prefix is allowed out on the public Internet uncontrolled then I have a problem with potential DNS hijacking and other issues (and I agree with Mr Hannigan that¹s where IETF needs to come in)
Assuming that the members agree that the prefix would not be internet reachable, do we want expand the scope of the proposal to ³Any service with local-only significance within the autonomous system², and not limit the use? I can see some other interesting uses that would not require global routability, but need slightly more flexibility/reachability than the usual RFC1918 space. On 27/1/14 12:26 pm, "Hannigan, Martin" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >That and isn't the IETF the right venue to carve out a specific from a >/8? This is in effect global policy, isn't it? > > >On Jan 25, 2014, at 8:24 PM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: > >> and why won't this leak and make confusion? >> >> randy >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > >* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * >_______________________________________________ >sig-policy mailing list >[email protected] >http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
