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 ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Thu Jun 7 18:19:35 CEST 2007
Havard Eidnes wrote: > [...] we will have re-created the swamp from IPv4 (192/8)? By introducing ipv6 PI, we are already committing to reproduce a routing swamp, albeit with defined borders (which will allow reasonable length-based prefix filtering). ULA-C would simply be another similarly defined swamp area, of limited reachability and therefore of limited use. Sure, you're going to get a couple of organisation crazeee enough to want to advertise this space. If they're stupid enough to want their business model depend on a completely broken engineering model, let them go ahead with it and see how far it gets them. Nick
- 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 ]