IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))

"Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com> Tue, 01 April 2003 23:30 UTC

Received: from ran.ietf.org (ran.ietf.org [10.27.6.60]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21625; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 18:30:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 190VNr-0000MG-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2003 18:41:39 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 190VNH-0000Gg-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2003 18:41:03 -0500
Received: from goose.ehsco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21482 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 18:24:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [207.65.3.26] (account ehall HELO ehsco.com) by goose.ehsco.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0) with ESMTP-TLS id 200379; Tue, 01 Apr 2003 17:25:54 -0600
Message-ID: <3E8A2035.2060308@ehsco.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 17:26:45 -0600
From: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312
X-Accept-Language: en-US,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
CC: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>, john@jck.com, alh-ietf@tndh.net, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))
References: <200303311701.h2VH1h615515@boreas.isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <200303311701.h2VH1h615515@boreas.isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

on 3/31/2003 11:01 AM Bill Manning wrote:
> 	Is may be worth noting that RIRs have -NEVER- made presumptions
> 	on routability of the delegations they make.

Probably more accurate to say that they have never guaranteed routability.

They make all kinds of presumptions about routability. One of the reasons
they claim to refuse (say) private /24 is that it isn't going to be widely
routable. By default, this implies that larger delegations are presumed to
be routable, or else they wouldn't assign them either.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email