Re: [arch-d] Treating "private" address ranges specially

Martin,

This seems well-meaning, but the heuristic might need work, depending on the scope of protection that is really needed.

On my own home network, for which I do nothing special as far as addresses are concerned, I currently see two public IPv6 networks being advertised from my cable co.
I also see public addresses on my VPN tunnels.  Were you to hardcode something around ULAs or 1918 addresses, this stuff wouldn’t really apply to me (or to many home networks).  On the other hand, if you were to apply a policy by matching the subnet mask to one of those networks… that would make a difference.  It may make sense to take as private some list as configuration for enterprises.  You might even be able to deduce this from a proxy.pac file, although that seems a bit fraught with corner cases.

Also, what do the proponents expect/want the behavior to be in the face of devices like printers, ovens, and who-knows-what that have these dinky little web servers, many of which would likely not update for quite some time (if ever)?

I’m presuming one doesn't want to cause an e-Waste problem as happened with popular printers in the face of an update to a popular OS this past year. I doubt people will replace their refrigerators over this, but if they can’t print…

Eliot

> On 31 Mar 2021, at 08:20, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021, at 17:17, Erik Kline wrote:
>> My mistake.  I think the key text I didn't property absord was "the
>> current url's host".
> 
> :) Yes, though if you have name resolution that produces a ULA (which might happen in mDNS), then you would be contacting a "private" address.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

Re: [arch-d] Treating "private" address ranges specially

Attachment: signature.asc