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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] RE: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica(seen on slashdot)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
michael.dillon at bt.com
michael.dillon at bt.com
Fri May 11 09:28:54 CEST 2007
> I don't understand your point about why ULA need to be registered if > its not going to be globally routed. Also PI is not the same as ULA - > PI do come from RIRs and in IPv6 there was no way to get PI (except > in a few special cases) until recent ARIN's micro-allocation policy. ULA addresses *WILL* be globally routed on an IPv6 internetwork. It just won't be the IP internetwork known as the Internet. Remember, IP addresses are not for use on the Internet, they are for use on IP networks. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica(seen on slashdot)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]