Victor Kuarsingh wrote:
"Randy Bush" <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> wrote:
In that I completely agree with what Randy is saying, the point
that needs to be made is that this should not be officially
sanctioned as RFC-1918 space -- no manufacturer or programmer
should treat this netblock the same.
If some fly-by-night company chooses to use it on their own,
well, then they have chosen to operate outside the bounds of
the best-principles - exactly the same as in Randy's example.
and the packets will be very ashamed, right?
we can say all the crap we want, but it will be used as 1918 space and,
like 1918 space, bgp announcesments of it will leak. get over it.
Sure, but with a well known address range, it's not just what one AS
leaks.. The other AS(s) can also block incoming. That's one of the
benefits of a well known space for this.
For squat, good luck figuring out who is using what from where.
Considering the huge amounts of unused IPv4 address space,
why is there a need for squat space at all?
Out of curiosity, I tried to configure interface addresses from
0/8 or 240/4, but neither my Linux nor my Windows boxen allowed me that.
And lots of CPEs are based on Linux. And a lot of that equiment
is used _much_ longer than its firmware is maintained by its vendor!
Any idea how long it takes to grow such hardwired restrictions out of
an installed base?
I wish there was more forward thinking among implementors.
One can not complain about the squat use of *assigned* space when all
of the unassigned address ranges have been made totally unusable by
implementors of IPv4 network stacks.
Ietf mailing list