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 <jskl...@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 <ra...@psg.com> wrote: > >>>> The answer seems to be "no, Jon's not answering his email anymore". >> >> jon was not a big supporter of rfc1918 >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
