[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: ietf
Subject: Re: Vendor viewpoint on ULA filtered-by-default
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada ! com>
Date: 2007-09-21 18:20:53
Message-ID: B7BD87F6-67D2-4C79-B00F-77C047AAED8D () muada ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
On 21-sep-2007, at 17:56, Fred Baker wrote:
> There is an obvious inherent bug in that, which has been observed
> in the IPv4 Internet with respect to RFC 1918 and martian prefixes.
> Administrations that don't apply the policy to deny ULAs will
> accept them, which will have the effect of leaking them if the peer
> inadvertently advertises them. The problem is that we, as a vendor,
> can't really tell the difference between clueful operators and
> clueless ones (their money all looks the same), and as a result
> make no attempt to save the world from one while trying to satisfy
> the other.
As a long time user of Cisco products, I think this is a useful
approach. I would be quite upset if I found out that I couldn't use
some kind of private addressing in a training course.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic