The power of default configurations

Thu Apr 7 17:56:01 UTC 2005

Paul Vixie wrote:

>>no to 1) prolong the pain, 2) beat a horsey.. BUT, why are 1918 ips
>>'special' to any application? why are non-1918 ips 'special' in a
>>different way?
>>    
>>
>
>i know this is hard to believe, but i was asked to review 1918 before it
>went to press, since i'd been vociferous in my comments about 1597.  in
>  
>
IMO, RFC1918 went off the track when both ISP's and registries started 
asking their customers if they have "seriously considered using 1918 
space instead of applying for addresses". This caused many kinds of 
renumbering nightmares, overlapping addresses, near death of ipv6, etc.

Pete