----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Vixie" <vixie@vix.com> To: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:04 PM Subject: Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
paul@rusko.us ("Paul G") writes:
all jokes aside, 1918 allows for use of 1918 space in a private network or a 'private internet [sic]' comprised of any such number of private networks as agree to interconnect and cooperate in routing traffic sourced from and destined to said space. it follows that any
1918-sourced
traffic you send me is illegitimate. ...
right, like this junk:
seems like rfc1918's prohibitions are not effective (and are unenforceable). i hope that there will be no more ops-relevant specs with harmful
--- snip --- potential
side-effects and ineffective+unenforceable prohibitions against those.
i tend to view it as a subclass of spoofing, more specifically spoofing through stupidity/misconfiguration. the only difference i see between someone fat-fingering an ip address and this is, as is to be (sadly) expected, that some folk abuse 1918 as a basis to argue correctness in such cases. while i'm sure we can all agree that we would have liked to have less implied trust engineered into designs when those rfcs were penned, this is probably one of the least damaging cases and i tend to think that enforcement of 1918 belongs elsewhere, ie ipv# and bcp38.
and of course, see BCP38 (or if you're in management, SAC004).
given the track record of bcp38 and fiery debate resulting from the mention thereof on nanog-l, i propose to tack it onto the local list of corollaries of godwin's law <g> p