At 12:30 28-09-2011, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG
(grow) to consider the following document:
- 'Time to Remove Filters for Previously Unallocated IPv4 /8s'
<draft-ietf-grow-no-more-unallocated-slash8s-03.txt> as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2011-10-12. Exceptionally, comments
may be
If there are down-refs in this draft, this Last Call will be invalided*.
After reading this draft, I conclude that there are no longer any
unallocated IPv4 /8. Shouldn't that mention IANA free pool?
In Section 3.1:
"Network administrators who implemented filters for unallocated IPv4
/8s did so in the knowledge that those /8s were not a legitimate
source of traffic on the Internet and that there was a small number
of bogon filters to implement."
These network administrators made the incorrect assumption that such
filters do not require any maintenance.
"Network operators SHOULD remove both ingress and egress packet
filters as well as BGP prefix filters for previously
unallocated IPv4 /8s."
Some network operators might find the use of the key word offensive. :-)
In Section 3.2:
"Some network administrators might want to continue filtering
unallocated IPv4 addresses managed by the RIRs."
If this draft is intended to be published as a BCP, it might be
better not to encourage such filtering. The people to which this
memo is being addressed won't get it anyway.
Instead of listing address blocks reserved for special purposes in
Section 4, I suggest incorporating them by reference.
Regards,
-sm
* This can be argued both ways. I am not asking for the Last Call to
be invalidated.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf