IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Mon, 28 January 2013 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 C4D9621F8915 for <renum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:56:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 2Cyct2NumiOi for <renum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:56:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECCB021F87E0 for <renum@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:56:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r0SHuZZP016371 for <renum@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:56:35 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk r0SHuZZP016371
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=200903; t=1359395795; bh=hm92/O748/MFBkg1TKQ5o7jI5lY=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To; b=tXlbVSRFbXUI/dvzDAAHgEAI2OcbUNTE6UOLtTsm8rLiiMew4kj+04a1OVFPVKmFi XcTFoRRLqZvVHoQGzZM+ozjsRWg9VTWtr6ZRR8KQbGhf7Q7PxHojpLyv/f5fb6HSe6 Qb5yAisdyaECUlGB0Np1ZK21mOPhk6nrx0WhbjPk=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:401]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:68da]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id p0RHuZ0430609726Vf ret-id none; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:56:35 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (host213-123-213-183.in-addr.btopenworld.com [213.123.213.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r0SHuVOt007783 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <renum@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:56:31 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <510139AE.2090200@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:56:31 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|ae7c3cfafbd464da59eb121be3c73f2bp0RHuZ03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|F514BE0E-6A66-4631-A74B-ACB5CC7E445A@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <510139AE.2090200@gmail.com> <F514BE0E-6A66-4631-A74B-ACB5CC7E445A@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: "renum@ietf.org" <renum@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=p0RHuZ043060972600; tid=p0RHuZ0430609726Vf; client=relay,forged,no_ptr,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: r0SHuZZP016371
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
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: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:56:40 -0000

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. 

Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email