This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roque Gagliano
rgaglian at antel.net.uy
Thu Jun 7 15:43:57 CEST 2007
> > ULAs are not intended to be publically routed by ISPs. While some may > attempt to get ISPs to route them, ISPs will have clear documentation > saying they are not intended to be used that way, and they are free to > filter them. And in fact they SHOULD be filtered. (I'd say MUST, but > since that is not enforceable...) Should ULA-C be published in the Whois database? what about reverse DNS for them, should they be delegated or just reply a NXDOMAIN? Roque ------------------------------------------------------------- Roque Gagliano ANTEL - URUGUAY rgaglian at antel.net.uy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070607/e30ad051/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]