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): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] 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 ]
Jason Schiller
schiller at uu.net
Fri May 11 15:14:36 CEST 2007
On Fri, 11 May 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Even if not globally routed, you may want to avoid a possible clash with > another organization, for example in case of a merge. > I agree. The importance of it being assigned by an authority is that that authority provides uniqueness. This is often important when an address collision occurs, such that one entity can prove they have the legitmate claim to use those numbers. Although these addresses may be used "internally" it is also important that they be capable to be supported by DNS (without setting up a split-horrizon DNS), for ease of management __Jason
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] 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 ]