I did share what I was smoking - it's called 'reality' :).
On a serious note, there aren't many clean (practical) solution that I am aware
of as we migrate to IPv6. Given where are, and considering the harm caused by
the alternatives of not having a reserved space (inaction -> squatting), the
proposed option certainly seem better, IMO.
To your point, I agree that the perils of misuse exist - and those who do
misuse (e.g., customers who use this space incorrectly, in conflict with ISPs)
will have themselves to blame (and are probably smart to correct themselves?).
Others that can break may break due to this - but, IMHO - would probably adapt
more quickly than customer equipment adapting to support IPv6 overnight (which
would seriously be nice!)...
On Nov 29, 2011, at 9:50 PM, "Mark Andrews" <marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org> wrote:
In message <m2sjl644h3(_dot_)wl%randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com>, Randy Bush writes:
anyone who thinks this will not be used as 1918 space should share
what they are smoking. the question is not if, but rather how many
milliseconds before it is. that is the operational reality.
And what harm to others does that cause? If a ISP is using this and
the customer is using this rather than RFC 1918 space then they only
have themselves to blame for operational problems it causes.
and we should have a betting pool on how long before it is leaked
into a measure such as route-views.
And users would be advised to filter routes for it the same as they
should be filtering routes for other space they are using.
and all this is aside from the pnp, skype, ... and other breakage.
and, imiho, we can screw ipv4 life support.
skype etc. will learn. This does prevent the breakage it just makes
it more controlled. What's the bet Skype has a patched released
within a week of this being made available?
this has become a contest of wills, not a technical discussion.
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
Ietf mailing list