Subject: RE: local addresses, 6to4 and 2002:RFC1918 [Re: Moving forward onSite-Local and Local Addressing]

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 08:32:48 -0700

Brian,

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> RFC 3056 says:
> [SNIP]
> Now, which word in "MUST NOT" is hard to understand?

I think you give way too much importance to what a MUST NOT in an RFC
can achieve.

- As seen with the Elz appeal recently, the IETF is not interesting in
forcing users to configure their networks in the IETF way.

- Even if there was some sanity check code, I work for a few
organizations that would easily twist their vendor's arm in order to
provide a special flag to bypass the check.

- Not to mention that some people won't find difficult to pad the check
with NOPs.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------