Request comment: list of IPs to block outbound

Wed Oct 23 06:16:42 UTC 2019

Subject: Re: Request comment: list of IPs to block outbound Date: Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:11:27PM -0600 Quoting Grant Taylor via NANOG (nanog at nanog.org):
> On 10/22/19 10:54 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:

> > It is just more RFC1918 space, a /10 unwisely spent on stalling IPv6
> > deployment.
> 
> My understanding is that RFC 6598 — Shared Address Space — is *EXPLICITLY*
> /not/ a part of RFC 1918 — Private Internet (Space).  And I do mean
> /explicitly/.

I understand the reasoning. I appreciate the need. I just do not agree
with the conclusion to waste a /10 on beating a dead horse. A /24 would
have been more appropriate way of moving the cost of ipv6 non-deployment
to those responsible. (put in RFC timescale, 6598 is 3000+ RFCen later
than the v6 specification. That is a few human-years. There are no
excuses for non-compliance except cheapness.)

Easing the operation of CGN at scale serves no purpose except stalling
necessary change. It is like installing an electric blanket to cure the
chill from bed-wetting.

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE           SA0XLR            +46 705 989668
I'm a nuclear submarine under the polar ice cap and I need a Kleenex!