[IPv6]Re: Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-zone-ui-07

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 18-Feb-25 07:19, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Tero Kivinen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      > Brian E Carpenter writes:
>      >> >>>  For example, a typical home router may today be configured via "192.168.178.1" but not via "fe80::1%eth0"
>      >>
>      >> which only makes sense by using an RFC 1918 address, so I think
>      >> we have no choice. We could use 10.1.1.1, which is a bit more
>      >> obvious.
> 
>      > Why would only RFC1918 addresses make sense there? I have seen home
> 
> Outside of the ten or so ancient IETFers that have public addresses behind
> our home routers, it makes no sense to give any other kind of address for the
> inside of the router.  I'd even argue that it should be 192.168.1.1.
> It's not actually an example, it's a real thing.

So is 192.168.178.1, in my FritzBox. I also have an ancient D-Link on my desk
that answers to 10.1.1.1.

Thinking about it last night, I thought we could change the text to read:

For example, a typical home router may today be configured via a well-known
private address [RFC1918] such as "192.168.178.1" but not via "fe80::1%eth0".

    Brian



> 
>      > routers using non RFC1918 addresses too, and they might even take
>      > IP-address from local DHCP server and use that.
> 
>      > Changing text to use IPv4 addresses reserved for examples would be
>      > best.
> 
> I strongly disagree.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>             Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
>