nanog mailing list archives
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
From: "Paul G" <paul () rusko us>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:21:25 -0500
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Vixie" <vixie () vix com> To: <nanog () merit edu> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:04 PM Subject: Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
paul () rusko us ("Paul G") writes:all jokes aside, 1918 allows for use of 1918 space in a private network or a 'private internet [sic]' comprised of any such number of private networks as agree to interconnect and cooperate in routing traffic sourced from and destined to said space. it follows that any
1918-sourced
traffic you send me is illegitimate. ...right, like this junk:
--- snip ---
seems like rfc1918's prohibitions are not effective (and are
unenforceable).
i hope that there will be no more ops-relevant specs with harmful
potential
side-effects and ineffective+unenforceable prohibitions against those.
i tend to view it as a subclass of spoofing, more specifically spoofing through stupidity/misconfiguration. the only difference i see between someone fat-fingering an ip address and this is, as is to be (sadly) expected, that some folk abuse 1918 as a basis to argue correctness in such cases. while i'm sure we can all agree that we would have liked to have less implied trust engineered into designs when those rfcs were penned, this is probably one of the least damaging cases and i tend to think that enforcement of 1918 belongs elsewhere, ie ipv# and bcp38.
and of course, see BCP38 (or if you're in management, SAC004).
given the track record of bcp38 and fiery debate resulting from the mention thereof on nanog-l, i propose to tack it onto the local list of corollaries of godwin's law <g> p
Current thread:
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested, (continued)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Michael . Dillon (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Jeroen Massar (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Randy Bush (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 09)
- RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Network.Security (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Adam Rothschild (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Jørgen Hovland (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Randy Bush (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Paul G (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Paul Vixie (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Paul G (Nov 09)
- RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Ray Plzak (Nov 10)
- RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Tony Hain (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Adam Rothschild (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Jørgen Hovland (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Paul G (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Jørgen Hovland (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Joe Maimon (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Randy Bush (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 10)