On 5/3/14, 10:36 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: >> a good number of us use that kinky /10 behind home nats and encourage >> everyone to do so. it was a sick deal and should be treated as such, >> just more 1918. > > A good number of folks use other folks IP space in all kinds of > strange and kinky ways too - it's ALL just more 1918, right??? Or > maybe standards exist for a reason. Perhaps enhancing coordination, > cooperation, and *interoperability* are good things... I'll let you > decide, Randy; is it sick to solve problems through community > consensus and standardization, or is it sick to be the one > intentionally getting in the way of those real world solutions?
Any time you have two parties that have to interconnect who have overlapping usage of the same space you're going to have issues. The authors the 6598 were concerned about intersection with legacy CPE. 100.64.0.0/10 does not yet have that issue. The use cases being described here (randy causing pollution, numbering internal network resources (the intended purpose after all)) have no relationship to legacy CPE. characterizing it as shared was always a misnomer since by their nature collisions are not sharing. in a somewhat unrelated note this prefix is still leaking in some globally visible ways in some places. e.g. if you're as3303 you probably shouldn't be importing these prefixes from customers or exporting as part of your full table given that you also accept them from subsidiaries. that's likely to end in tears. > Cheers, > ~Chris > >> >> randy >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
