nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC 1918 network range choices
From: Joe Klein <jsklein () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 09:51:31 -0400
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
Current thread:
- RFC 1918 network range choices Jay R. Ashworth (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Akshay Kumar via NANOG (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Jay R. Ashworth (Oct 05)
- Message not available
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices John Kristoff (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Randy Bush (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Joe Klein (Oct 06)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Ryan Harden (Oct 06)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Daniel Karrenberg (Oct 06)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices John Kristoff (Oct 05)
- RE: RFC 1918 network range choices Jay Ashworth (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices valdis . kletnieks (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Brian Kantor (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Joe Provo (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Steve Feldman (Oct 05)
- Re: RFC 1918 network range choices Lyndon Nerenberg (Oct 05)