[196176] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC 1918 network range choices
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Klein)
Sat Oct 7 20:57:55 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <m2fuaxnxtt.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Joe Klein <jsklein@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 09:51:31 -0400
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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@psg.com> wrote:
> >> The answer seems to be "no, Jon's not answering his email anymore".
>
> jon was not a big supporter of rfc1918
>
