Subject: Re: Request comment: list of IPs to block outbound Date: Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:11:27PM -0600 Quoting Grant Taylor via NANOG (nanog@nanog.org):
On 10/22/19 10:54 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
It is just more RFC1918 space, a /10 unwisely spent on stalling IPv6 deployment.
My understanding is that RFC 6598 — Shared Address Space — is *EXPLICITLY* /not/ a part of RFC 1918 — Private Internet (Space). And I do mean /explicitly/.
I understand the reasoning. I appreciate the need. I just do not agree with the conclusion to waste a /10 on beating a dead horse. A /24 would have been more appropriate way of moving the cost of ipv6 non-deployment to those responsible. (put in RFC timescale, 6598 is 3000+ RFCen later than the v6 specification. That is a few human-years. There are no excuses for non-compliance except cheapness.) Easing the operation of CGN at scale serves no purpose except stalling necessary change. It is like installing an electric blanket to cure the chill from bed-wetting. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE SA0XLR +46 705 989668 I'm a nuclear submarine under the polar ice cap and I need a Kleenex!