On May 2, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
That this is a completely unscalable answer to the problem that a tiny
percentage of computers on the Internet are misconfigured is something
the people pushing this "whitelisting" acknowledge. They're going to
jump off that bridge when they get to it. Right now, there's hardly
any IPv6 penetration, they say, so they can handle it.
I think that this sort of "whitelisting" is, to be blunt,
short-sighted and foolish, but I think it is better to have a document
that at least explains what it is. If we had a WCP series, I'd
nominate this for inclusion.
Perhaps the document could include the arguments for and against this practice?
That way, someone who is new to IPv6
deployment theory can quickly get up to speed.
I'm very much in favor of documents which say "don't do this -- but if you have
to, here's how." But they have to include enough context for someone to
understand why it'd be better if they didn't.
--
J.D. Falk
the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf