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]/
[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Sat Jun 16 00:58:12 CEST 2007
> If (non-globally routed) PI is the answer to the ULA-C question, is > there going to be enough (non-globally routed) PI so that I can get a > (non-globally routed) PI allocation for my home, at a small charge for > the guaranteed uniqueness e.g. US$10 per annum ? How about my Personal > Area Network that interconnects my mobile phone, portable music player > and pedometer in my shoes. Will there be enough (non-globally routed) > PI that everybody on the planet who might end up having that sort of > PAN can get a (non-globally routed) PI address allocation, should they > want one ? How about if they want separate allocations for both their > PAN and their home network. these are rir policy and price issues. they are not technical issues. except for routability, which, as smb says, don't think you ain't gonna want to connect it some day; you will. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]