nanog mailing list archives
Re: private ip addresses from ISP
From: Warren Kumari <warren () kumari net>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:50:34 -0700
On May 24, 2006, at 2:05 AM, Michael.Dillon () btradianz com wrote: <snip>
So again, I ask the question: Is NANOG an appropriate forum to develop some best practices text that could be incorporated into service agreements and peering agreements by reference in the same way that a software licence incorporates the GPL by referring to it?
Ah, I think we all assumed you were kidding when you asked that!While I think NANOG *should* be the appropriate forum, I don't really think it will be -- there are too many personal agendas -- getting the community to agree on *anything* these days appears to be a losing proposition....
I suspect that a post suggesting we replace IP with a piece of wet spaghetti would:
a: Get n replies agreeing b: Get n replies disagreeing c: Possibly generate a post that is trying to be useful.d: A fish (not a fish anything, just a random posting not related to anything on topic)
e: Spawn a thread screaming "Troll" f: Get 2n replies asking if that will run on vendor Xg: Get 2n replies suggesting that an alternate root / better SPAM detection / would fix all our woes
h: Generate n^2 ad hominem attack threads. i: Be sidetracked into a request for a contact for company Yj: Get misinterpreted [supporting | blasting] someone's pet theory / idea / etc
Even the fairly simple question of whether a network should emit packets with RFC1918 sourced packets (a topic I am declining to comment on) exhibited many of the above. While I think having "some best practices text that could be incorporated into service agreements and peering agreements" would be great I suspect this isn't the forum to generate such a thing -- unless it looks like:
Best Common Practices (please circle appropriate field):1: Interconnecting networks (agree to always) / (agree to never) / (agree to sometimes) emit packets with RFC1918 addresses 2: Interconnecting networks ( shall) / (shall not ) run some form of RPF
3: Interconnecting networks (will) / (won't) / (might) randomly depeer ... etc.Having "some best practices text that could be incorporated into service agreements and peering agreements" would be great -- lets how about setting up a forum for this?
Warren (who is feeling very grumpy and cynical this morning -- and might take all the above back once the coffee sinks in)
--Michael Dillon
-- "Real children don't go hoppity-skip unless they are on drugs."-- Susan, the ultimate sensible governess (Terry Pratchett, Hogfather)
Current thread:
- Re: private ip addresses from ISP, (continued)
- Re: private ip addresses from ISP Robert Bonomi (May 23)
- Re: private ip addresses from ISP Joe Maimon (May 23)
- RE: private ip addresses from ISP Brian Johnson (May 23)
- Re: private ip addresses from ISP Joe Maimon (May 23)
- Re: private ip addresses from ISP Joseph S D Yao (May 23)
- Re: private ip addresses from ISP Joe Maimon (May 23)
- Re: private ip addresses from ISP Joseph S D Yao (May 23)
- Re: private ip addresses from ISP Joe Maimon (May 23)
- Re: private ip addresses from ISP Robert Bonomi (May 23)
- Re: private ip addresses from ISP Joseph S D Yao (May 23)
- Re: private ip addresses from ISP Michael . Dillon (May 24)
- Re: private ip addresses from ISP Warren Kumari (May 24)
- Re: private ip addresses from ISP Valdis . Kletnieks (May 24)
- Re: private ip addresses from ISP Edward B. DREGER (May 24)