Re: RFC 1918 network range choices
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 15:03:58 +0000 "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
The answer seems to be "no, Jon's not answering his email anymore".
You might get a better answer over on the internet-history list. Lots of people are still around that could probably shed some light on it. <http://www.postel.org/internet-history/> John
Which part? The allocation of the addresses or the security model (section 2, 4 & 5)? Note: Very few system, network, or security professionals have even read anything besides section 3, the private address allocation. Could be why we have some many compromises --- just saying. Joe Klein "inveniet viam, aut faciet" --- Seneca's Hercules Furens (Act II, Scene 1) PGP Fingerprint: 295E 2691 F377 C87D 2841 00C1 4174 FEDF 8ECF 0CC8 On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
The answer seems to be "no, Jon's not answering his email anymore".
jon was not a big supporter of rfc1918
Interesting you call sections 2,4,5 a security model when section 6 explicitly states "Security issues are not addressed in this memo.” Sections 2, 4, and 5 are motivational and design considerations. Using RFC1918 space is not and should not be considered a security practice. /Ryan Ryan Harden Research and Advanced Networking Architect University of Chicago - ASN160 P: 773.834.5441
On Oct 6, 2017, at 8:51 AM, Joe Klein <jsklein@gmail.com> wrote:
Which part? The allocation of the addresses or the security model (section 2, 4 & 5)?
Note: Very few system, network, or security professionals have even read anything besides section 3, the private address allocation. Could be why we have some many compromises --- just saying.
Joe Klein
"inveniet viam, aut faciet" --- Seneca's Hercules Furens (Act II, Scene 1) PGP Fingerprint: 295E 2691 F377 C87D 2841 00C1 4174 FEDF 8ECF 0CC8
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
The answer seems to be "no, Jon's not answering his email anymore".
jon was not a big supporter of rfc1918
On 05/10/2017 13:28, Randy Bush wrote:
The answer seems to be "no, Jon's not answering his email anymore".
jon was not a big supporter of rfc1918
If I recall correctly not one of the authors was a "big supporter". Some things are not full of beauty and glory; yet they have to be done. I recall a number of conversations with Jon about this, at least one of them face-to-face. I am convinced he fully agreed that it was necessary. Daniel
participants (5)
-
Daniel Karrenberg -
Joe Klein -
John Kristoff -
Randy Bush -
Ryan Harden