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/
[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Per Heldal
heldal at eml.cc
Tue May 15 12:30:03 CEST 2007
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 05:30 +0000, bmanning at karoshi.com wrote: > > > > ULA-central is NOT intended to be uses as IPv6 PI. > > but there is no way to stop it from becoming so. What makes that different from any other randomly selected block of addresses if you don't apply some form of filter? The current routing-architecture applied to v6 will blow up in our face sooner or later without improved mechanisms to prevent excessive de-aggregation and unauthorised use of unallocated blocks. I'm no fan of private addressing, but it doesn't seem awfully hard to include the handling of ULA-central in such a solution. //per
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]