From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl1-x633.google.com (mail-pl1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::633]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CBFF3CB3B for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 22:29:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pl1-x633.google.com with SMTP id a14so4184694plm.12 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 19:29:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=e92OaDWCs9mlYa0id1s4CRDdhWWzabGDr+6E1nJ3EiY=; b=LngSYt5B7Nphr7/0Pv8I/7MaMX1KBwmCAdgGyoz3RTNXnNLlKHMiSOfUN8xImRo0rI dMvnNG1q2Vx6cz+PPlS0XyNssMHC0L0Q3nUICeXPNkKGzQoiw1ymt5odLg+m+mCTQ5oX QOGtPvYQPUT6qujh6Ztbgzp/Jmr7stHoNcEJReM93ftAjdV76iLnr2eaB3mIqIGNxoo+ aWGZx8W7HM8tKbypzWUJLrtO+260su+/5m7ETNVF7qbI8CgT0UuMGsOLhvWAQvbCcRQd cBHPDSyiCdHzAi//SYaB2oXLzi0Jm7kZ1tuTnARUnYRo5Q/xHkeOr1OPqe/L+ZYaFHi8 6QzQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=e92OaDWCs9mlYa0id1s4CRDdhWWzabGDr+6E1nJ3EiY=; b=rcluLxfcOhGStGaBBfT+YIDxbVJWPYssG0XvvVjvggXoNAF7ge+mHs9GxlD//jdW3N YtWeUFr+M7GnnTeel7UdGGitaNoQy69QVSJBHtqZAdU1rhKQsdZ8xW+nt9NCrsgfBpKB nhVp2QdRhzwkyvAo4FqgJ+bl2aXdexv8Z10sOrnCLOZx0y5bXK9z2j6hYCeCPnlvN5pO MwYX4L02jk0qvXBl/s+iNRmyfCrsUMLJI4qyc/P9IDIwiDVrrQxXq8AZCEH07+Th8L3B aVYRCkadAr9RmC3t2qEeULo/UcowoR+ZE7TM5bijQjGSCkek9lm9Ff8SRxsauqniOw4U 8vBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLL6suUOuHuQGTxXUE95UzD/i1qAwGlqb9UHbwHnlcwW0SpNl+O flLO/Ojcv1uTOBrSeDJES8uG7THhAACjnD5/PhcPtGP4CEk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5ecRU5e4ANwXem3iM/nWX8M7Zg12Ce5DeixD3WyJAVHrt7NxN871Sgy9QcwJb5NgNOpSEM/f/ptpX8ey2VA0Ss= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c5:: with SMTP id a63-v6mr4570811pla.201.1542252547178; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 19:29:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Stephen Hemminger Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 19:28:54 -0800 Message-ID: To: Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: David Lang , cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003a98a2057aaba723" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Wicked OT: 240.0.0.0/4 netblock X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 03:29:08 -0000 --0000000000003a98a2057aaba723 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" It might be useable as yet another private network reserved range. But like others said only with a known good set of devices. On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 2:05 AM Mikael Abrahamsson On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, David Lang wrote: > > > leaking to the outside in e-mail headers or other payload is no > different > > from the current RFC local addresses > > Well, it is. For instance spam detection software might think that class-E > in mail header means obligatory SPAM. I don't know, I'm just speculating. > > > The problem would be if you allowed the address to leak in the IP > headers. > > There can be problems outside of just IP headers. The SIP people have IPv6 > problems even if they're not doing IPv6 (since it can pop up in the > SIP signaling payload). There are lots of protocols that carry this kind > of information within the protocol, and it does leak. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > --0000000000003a98a2057aaba723 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It might be useable as yet another private network reserv= ed range. But like others said only with a known good set of devices.
=
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 2:05 = AM Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp= .se wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018,= David Lang wrote:

> leaking to the outside in e-mail headers or other payload is no differ= ent
> from the current RFC local addresses

Well, it is. For instance spam detection software might think that class-E =
in mail header means obligatory SPAM. I don't know, I'm just specul= ating.

> The problem would be if you allowed the address to leak in the IP head= ers.

There can be problems outside of just IP headers. The SIP people have IPv6 =
problems even if they're not doing IPv6 (since it can pop up in the SIP signaling payload). There are lots of protocols that carry this kind of information within the protocol, and it does leak.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson=C2=A0 =C2=A0 email: swmike@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinf= o/cerowrt-devel
--0000000000003a98a2057aaba723--