RFC 1918 network range choices

Ryan Harden hardenrm at uchicago.edu
Fri Oct 6 14:15:21 CST 2017


Interesting you call sections 2,4,5 a security model when section 6 explicitly states "Security issues are not addressed in this memo.”

Sections 2, 4, and 5 are motivational and design considerations. Using RFC1918 space is not and should not be considered a security practice.

/Ryan

Ryan Harden
Research and Advanced Networking Architect
University of Chicago - ASN160
P: 773.834.5441




> On Oct 6, 2017, at 8:51 AM, Joe Klein <jsklein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Which part?  The allocation of the addresses or the security model (section
> 2, 4 & 5)?
> 
> Note: Very few system, network, or security professionals have even read
> anything besides section 3, the private address allocation.  Could be why
> we have some many compromises --- just saying.
> 
> Joe Klein
> 
> "inveniet viam, aut faciet" --- Seneca's Hercules Furens (Act II, Scene 1)
> PGP Fingerprint: 295E 2691 F377 C87D 2841 00C1 4174 FEDF 8ECF 0CC8
> 
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> The answer seems to be "no, Jon's not answering his email anymore".
>> 
>> jon was not a big supporter of rfc1918
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 236 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20171006/ca936ce6/attachment.sig>


More information about the NANOG mailing list