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: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Stephen Sprunk
stephen at sprunk.org
Mon May 14 14:45:41 CEST 2007
Thus spake "Brian E Carpenter" <brc at zurich.ibm.com> > Fred, the point is that ULAs should be unambiguous, so that if they > happen to meet (e.g. via a VPN, or following a merge of two previously > separate networks) there is no collision. Currently ULAs include > a pseudo-random prefix, which leaves open a theoretical possibility > of collision. Centrally-allocated ULAs would not have this issue. The chance is negligible until you have a number of organizations interconnecting that approaches the AS count on the public Internet. Those who are uncomfortable with those odds can get PIv6 space. ULA Central does not solve any problems that the existing tools already solve, and it creates new problems of its own. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]