To:
Tom Limoncelli <tal@lumeta.com>
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se, Mats Dufberg <dufberg@nic-se.se>, Philip Hazel <ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
From:
Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
Date:
Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:43:36 -0800
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<3C6D415C.472BE736@lumeta.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.3.25i
Subject:
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-03.txt
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 12:11:56PM -0500, Tom Limoncelli wrote: > On Feb 14, 2002, 09:03 (-0000) Philip Hazel <ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > I didn't want to put in an explicit list, because people would interpret > > it to be exhaustive. I was trying in the document to establish a > > principle, not give a recipe. I don't think this is the place to > > attempt to list all the private addresses - especially with IPv6 at such > > an early stage with things changing a lot still. 2 is of course a > > special case, and I mention some of 3 purely as an example. > > IMHO the draft/RFC is useless if it doesn't include an explicit list. > .... > I am constantly recommending this list to clients, and it would be useful > if there was one specific RFC that I could point them to (sort of a > "drawing a line in the sand"). I'm sure the ISP community would appreciate > it also. > > --tal beware of explict lists. draft-manning-dsua-07.txt has been around as a draft for nearly five years. some parties in the IESG/IAB have squelched its advancement. these are prefixes that should only be coded in the DNS in specific cases. It's being updated to include IPv6 ranges as well. I don't ever expect it to go into Informational RFC status with the current makeup of the IESG/IAB. --bill