Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice

Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Mon, 03 December 2012 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83FCE21F8939 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:34:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.245
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.245 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eNin6DgcHQ2q for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:33:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og113.obsmtp.com (exprod7og113.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF67421F88EB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:33:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob113.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUL0o12VNLeZV+zqNxPm4GClOvxPw1Fm+@postini.com; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:33:59 PST
Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:31:17 -0800
Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:31:17 -0800
Received: from db3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (213.199.154.140) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:38:47 -0800
Received: from mail57-db3-R.bigfish.com (10.3.81.232) by DB3EHSOBE008.bigfish.com (10.3.84.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:31:03 +0000
Received: from mail57-db3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail57-db3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E152401B4 for <ietf@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:31:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.238.5; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BY2PRD0512HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
X-SpamScore: -1
X-BigFish: PS-1(zz1418Izz1de0h1202h1d1ah1d2ahzz8275dh18602ehz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1155h)
Received: from mail57-db3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail57-db3 (MessageSwitch) id 135457386180367_23591; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:31:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB3EHSMHS013.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.81.251]) by mail57-db3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06E5938024B; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:31:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BY2PRD0512HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.238.5) by DB3EHSMHS013.bigfish.com (10.3.87.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:30:59 +0000
Received: from BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.5.199]) by BY2PRD0512HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.243.34]) with mapi id 14.16.0245.002; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:30:54 +0000
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: "gih@apnic.net" <gih@apnic.net>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
Thread-Topic: Re: Last Call: <draft-bonica-special-purpose-03.txt> (Special-Purpose Address Registries) to Best Current Practice
Thread-Index: Ac3Rpdqz1VUAff1MSW6LIgvP186FLQ==
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:30:54 +0000
Message-ID: <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2501DBADD2@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.232.2]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%APNIC.NET$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%PSG.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:34:00 -0000

Geoff, Randy,

Having reflected on your comments, I think that the two of you may be approaching the same problem from two directions. I will try my best to articulate the problem. When we agree that we have a common understanding of the problem, we can decide whether to fix draft-bonica or abandon it.

Geoff points out that each of the entries mentioned in draft-bonica can be characterized as one of the following:

- a special purpose address assignment
- a address reservation

All compliant IP implementations must respect special purpose address assignments. As Randy puts it, special purpose address assignments should be baked into IP stacks. 

However, the same is not true of address reservations. While operators may afford special treatment to packets that are sourced from or destined to reserved addresses, these treatments should not be baked into IP implementations. They should be configurable.

Currently, there is nothing in draft-bonica that distinguishes between special purpose address assignments and address reservations. If we were to continue with this draft, we would have to add a field that makes this distinction. Having added that field, we should also make clear that that field, and only that field, determines whether an address should be baked into IP stacks?

Randy, Geoff, have I restated the problem accurately?


--------------------------
Ron Bonica
vcard:       www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf