Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14.txt>

[Martin Rex <[e-mail]>]

Victor Kuarsingh wrote:
> 
> "Randy Bush" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> In that I completely agree with what Randy is saying, the point
> >> that needs to be made is that this should not be officially
> >> sanctioned as RFC-1918 space --  no manufacturer or programmer
> >> should treat this netblock the same.
> >> 
> >> If some fly-by-night company chooses to use it on their own,
> >> well, then they have chosen to operate outside the bounds of
> >> the best-principles - exactly the same as in Randy's example.
> >
> >and the packets will be very ashamed, right?
> >
> >we can say all the crap we want, but it will be used as 1918 space and,
> >like 1918 space, bgp announcesments of it will leak.  get over it.
> 
> Sure, but with a well known address range, it's not just what one AS
> leaks.. The other AS(s) can also block incoming.  That's one of the
> benefits of a well known space for this.
> 
> For squat, good luck figuring out who is using what from where.

Considering the huge amounts of unused IPv4 address space,
why is there a need for squat space at all?

Out of curiosity, I tried to configure interface addresses from
0/8 or 240/4, but neither my Linux nor my Windows boxen allowed me that.
And lots of CPEs are based on Linux.  And a lot of that equiment
is used _much_ longer than its firmware is maintained by its vendor!

Any idea how long it takes to grow such hardwired restrictions out of
an installed base?

I wish there was more forward thinking among implementors.

One can not complain about the squat use of *assigned* space when all
of the unassigned address ranges have been made totally unusable by
implementors of IPv4 network stacks.


-Martin