Re: Last Call: draft-iana-rfc3330bis (Special Use IPv4 Addresses) to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 4/7/09 10:26 AM, Peter Koch wrote:
    10.0.0.0/8 - This block is set aside for use in private networks.
    Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918].  Addresses within this
    block SHOULD NOT appear on the public Internet and can be used
    without any coordination with IANA or an Internet registry.
My reading of RFC 1918 suggests a stronger approach, even though RFC 1918
predates RFC 2119.  But more importantly: either this is an update or
clarification to RFC 1918, then it should say so in the header _and_
this document should aim at BCP, or (preferrably) this is just descriptive,
then the RFC 2119 language should not be used.

Peter's reading matches my own understanding. While I have no position on the status of the document, if normative language is to be used, this would be a good place for "MUST NOT". A number of subsequent pieces of work make the assumption that these addresses do not appear on the Internet. All of this having been said, the logic within RFC-1918 itself is, well, old, and also pre-dates wide spread deployment of NAT. If it is time for a Spring cleaning, as it were, perhaps that BCP is a good one to tackle. Were someone to take it on, I would recommend shortening the document considerably, adding a few references to various tunneling mechanisms that mention those addresses, and removing most of the discussion about what gets a public address and what gets a private address.

<BAR-DISCUSSION>
In case anyone is wondering, yes, I still hate that we did this, but operational reality is what it is, and we may have had no choice.
</BAR-DISCUSSION>

Eliot
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]