George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Robert E. Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> wrote:
More like "wasting no time in fulfilling the prophesy that people will treat it like just another rfc1918 space and deploy it wherever they want".
not that randy is likely to get bitten because he's not behind a cgn nor is he planning to be, but still, that took all of what, 72 hours?
-r
I think this is people reading their preconceived notions onto the situation.
I understand the policy disagreement about having the space in the first place. That said...
Your and Jerome's reactions seem to amount to "Not only should you never have done this, actually testing it in the normal informal operational area once it's here and approved is a further insult."
My counterargument is - if you are suggesting people should be less professional about testing out the new space than they are for any other new thing, then you're being political and not operational. Operationally this is exactly the right thing to have Randy do.
He certainly didn't need to do this because he's exhausted 1918 space at home (well, I hope not... 8-).
In the unlikely but not impossible event that Randy is on 1918 space at home and has the external address of his consumer home gateway configured into this space, and thence to a CGN appliance or blade in the Big Router at his perimeter where he gets NATted into a globally unique address (i.e., the meat in a NAT444 sandwich), or something similar, then I certainly stand corrected. I encourage this sort of testing. I'm not reading "my preconceived notions" of anything other than Randy's personality and very vocal assertions of what people would do with this space if it got assigned into my assessment of what's going on here. Inasmuch as I am pretty sure I'm in Randy's .procmailrc, y'all will have to ask him directly; don't expect him to chime in replying to my mail. -r