Re: Vendor viewpoint on ULA filtered-by-default

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>]

On 21-sep-2007, at 17:56, Fred Baker wrote:

> There is an obvious inherent bug in that, which has been observed  
> in the IPv4 Internet with respect to RFC 1918 and martian prefixes.  
> Administrations that don't apply the policy to deny ULAs will  
> accept them, which will have the effect of leaking them if the peer  
> inadvertently advertises them. The problem is that we, as a vendor,  
> can't really tell the difference between clueful operators and  
> clueless ones (their money all looks the same), and as a result  
> make no attempt to save the world from one while trying to satisfy  
> the other.

As a long time user of Cisco products, I think this is a useful  
approach. I would be quite upset if I found out that I couldn't use  
some kind of private addressing in a training course.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf