[ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-3 Global Addresses for Private Ne twork Inter -Connectivity

[Howard, W. Lee]

>From Bill's original message:
End-users not currently connected to an ISP and/or not planning to be
connected to the Internet 
are encouraged to use private IP address numbers reserved for non-connected
networks (see RFC 1918).


>From your notes, it looks like you object to NAT, not a specific set of
integers.  Using 
private addresses on private networks does not imply NAT.

Bill's message included an excerpt of current policy, which says:
End-users not currently connected to an ISP and/or plan not to be connected
to the Internet 
are encouraged to use private IP numbers reserved for non-connected networks
(see RFC 1918 
</library/rfc/rfc1918.txt>). 

Do you object to current policy, proposed policy, or everything?

Lee

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Randy Bush
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 11:20 PM
> To: Alec H. Peterson
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-3 Global Addresses 
> for Private Network Inter -Connectivity
> 
> 
> this is arin, not some advice to the hacker group.  use of 
> 1918 space is dangerous and can cause nasty surprises to pop 
> up years later.  see
> 
    <http://rip.psg.com/~randy/040226.apnic-nats.pdf>.

folk who understand what they're getting into may choose to use it.  heck, i
do for part of my home networks, as my dsl isps are stingy with address
space.  and it causes pain via a number of applications is breaks, e.g.
sip/rtp.

but the rir's members are of all flavors, wise, newbies, ...  we should not
be directly *encouraging* use of a technique known to be dangerous.  and
lirs (kinda isps in the rest of the world) have been known to seriously
abuse this, e.g. a colonial ptt forcing an in-country isp to use nat and a
/27 for their entire operation.  and the ptt will point to your *encourage*
and stonewall.

you can look at how apnic and ripe now phrase it.  i think it is more "you
may want to look at" or something.

randy