Re: [renum] Embedding Globally-Routable Internet Addresses Considered Harmful

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 29 January 2013 09:02 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: renum@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: renum@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63B521F85E7 for <renum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:02:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.407
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.284, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 u+ieV7rKWsrv for <renum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:02:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ee0-f53.google.com (mail-ee0-f53.google.com [74.125.83.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF7321F85DF for <renum@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:02:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ee0-f53.google.com with SMTP id e53so101950eek.40 for <renum@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:02:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tH5EbRYUXQAxkPG1IaIwLxuEi7U5WzOUOVM5eudnbCQ=; b=wJSDoBukR2byfM4H1LLqbkx94cZIPQoDR4MFwf9sHdvGKEvmpDfgaf+ItFIvbgRH1K /zgBSYnRusslyXcbEsFz+Ib3TkE4e78LmtZHH6XQjH1SwY28lrvP/25vgEcL6tRcnA/W cdB4IXbJ4QM/4ut3uLe73mjT1z7JFRzuLwQyuuNj6UxMVYQr4BJpWyFETYEdYkYgkIRH 2lY7JaldYrjlb1Blu3DXemkmNWVf+YZio5S42HtDz32weSKKt0xnJmw5F+zvykTEqUdM bAUG6wNrV4nat1b1vfIouII7U+bOG8HE6sYC7yl+HYgCpR5/+q/5BN7nlEN++UbU/JDC Gdkw==
X-Received: by 10.14.218.71 with SMTP id j47mr1306711eep.28.1359450142353; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.65] (host-2-102-217-172.as13285.net. [2.102.217.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 44sm19595540eek.5.2013.01.29.01.02.20 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:02:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <51079021.2030406@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:02:25 +0000
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <510139AE.2090200@gmail.com> <F514BE0E-6A66-4631-A74B-ACB5CC7E445A@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|ae7c3cfafbd464da59eb121be3c73f2bp0RHuZ03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|F514BE0E-6A66-4631-A74B-ACB5CC7E445A@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|ae7c3cfafbd464da59eb121be3c73f2bp0RHuZ03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|F514BE0E-6A66-4631-A74B-ACB5CC7E445A@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "renum@ietf.org" <renum@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [renum] Embedding Globally-Routable Internet Addresses Considered Harmful
X-BeenThere: renum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Renumbering discussion mailing list." <renum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/renum>, <mailto:renum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/renum>
List-Post: <mailto:renum@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:renum-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/renum>, <mailto:renum-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:02:30 -0000

On 28/01/2013 17:56, Tim Chown wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2013, at 13:39, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> Somehow we managed to miss RFC 4085 "Embedding Globally-Routable
>> Internet Addresses Considered Harmful" when writing
>> draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem.
>>
>> Would anyone here object to sliding in a citation during AUTH48?
> 
> This seems worthwhile, if it fits within the AUTH48 process. I must admit I had forgotten about that document. 
> 

Hmm. I was just looking at the draft to see where this would fit in,
and the answer is nowhere, without creating a new section, which is
really too much for AUTH48. I do think we should consider RFC 4085
as an important recommendation, however.

    Brian