Announcing 2003::/16 during tests of "shipworm"

[Ville]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Jan Oravec wrote:

> Anyway, I don't see the point of using the Shipworm. The cleaner solution
> is to configure IPv6 on the box, which provide NAT for the private network.

> [...]

Personally, all I can see here is yet another Bash your parter -thread,
TMPWBVL (too many people with big virtual LARTs).

I doubt this ever would have gotten this far:

	a) If the organization announcing 2003::/16 was not Microsoft
	   and such an indeniable amount of Microsoft-hatred did not
	   exist on this and many other techie-lists.

	b) If the peers of Microsoft filtered announcements for invalid
	   prefixes either manually (exclusively permitting known
	   valid and allocated routes only) or automatically (based on
	   the data synchronized from remote servers or databases).

	   Both, for their own safety and for the sake of their own
	   reputation as a responsible peer both IPv4- and IPv6-wise.

	c) If somebody had initially forwarded the e-mail many, but not
	   all members of this list, saw on the ngtrans ML.

And the optional d) about if people took things calmly and possibly tried
approaching the remote party first to have the issue resolved- maybe we
all would save a quarter of our time and an hour's worth of unnecessary
headache.


> Jan Oravec

Cheers.
-- 
	Ville <viha@stealth.net>  Network Security/IPv6 Solutions
				  Stealth Communications, Inc.