Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters

[George Herbert <george.herbert () gmail com>]

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:
> I wish people would actually read RFC 1918.
>
>      Category 1: hosts that do not require access to hosts in other
>                  enterprises or the Internet at large; hosts within
>                  this category may use IP addresses that are
>                  unambiguous within an enterprise, but may be
>                  ambiguous between enterprises.
>
>      Category 2: hosts that need access to a limited set of outside
>                  services (e.g., E-mail, FTP, netnews, remote login)
>                  which can be handled by mediating gateways (e.g.,
>                  application layer gateways). For many hosts in this
>                  category an unrestricted external access (provided
>                  via IP connectivity) may be unnecessary and even
>                  undesirable for privacy/security reasons. Just like
>                  hosts within the first category, such hosts may use
>                  IP addresses that are unambiguous within an
>                  enterprise, but may be ambiguous between
>                  enterprises.
>
>      Category 3: hosts that need network layer access outside the
>                  enterprise (provided via IP connectivity); hosts in
>                  the last category require IP addresses that are
>                  globally unambiguous.
>
> RFC 1918 addresses for machines that fall in Categories 1 and 2.

You're assuming there that people followed the directions.

That is demonstrably false.

It's easy to say "Well, foo on them", but for those of us who provide
services or consulting to those who failed to follow the directions,
we still have to deal with it.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert () gmail com