On 4/7/09 10:26 AM, Peter Koch wrote:
10.0.0.0/8 - This block is set aside for use in private networks.
Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918]. Addresses within this
block SHOULD NOT appear on the public Internet and can be used
without any coordination with IANA or an Internet registry.
My reading of RFC 1918 suggests a stronger approach, even though RFC 1918
predates RFC 2119. But more importantly: either this is an update or
clarification to RFC 1918, then it should say so in the header _and_
this document should aim at BCP, or (preferrably) this is just descriptive,
then the RFC 2119 language should not be used.
Peter's reading matches my own understanding. While I have no position
on the status of the document, if normative language is to be used, this
would be a good place for "MUST NOT". A number of subsequent pieces of
work make the assumption that these addresses do not appear on the
Internet. All of this having been said, the logic within RFC-1918
itself is, well, old, and also pre-dates wide spread deployment of NAT.
If it is time for a Spring cleaning, as it were, perhaps that BCP is a
good one to tackle. Were someone to take it on, I would recommend
shortening the document considerably, adding a few references to various
tunneling mechanisms that mention those addresses, and removing most of
the discussion about what gets a public address and what gets a private
address.
<BAR-DISCUSSION>
In case anyone is wondering, yes, I still hate that we did this, but
operational reality is what it is, and we may have had no choice.
</BAR-DISCUSSION>
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf