North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested

  • From: Paul G
  • Date: Tue Nov 09 20:23:56 2004

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Vixie" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested


>
> [email protected] ("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