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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf