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]/
[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Tue May 29 10:26:19 CEST 2007
>> ok, i give. if ula address space is assigned/managed by >> registries, how is it actually different from pi space? > Basically ULA space has the same 'routability' as RFC1918 space which is a benefit because ...? rfc 1918 space is a hack to deal with an address space shortage. we are told ipv6 space is effectively infinite. hence we do not need rfc 1918 style space. > with the added benefit of less (or in case of ULA central: no) > possibility for conflicting addresses when merging/connecting > separate networks. because, in statistical hope, it will not overlap. i.e. it does not even conserve space a la 1918. so, again, what's the benefit? > PI space is expected to be routed globally (if the user of the space > wants to). as has been amply demonstrated, 1918 space leaks time and again. so this ula stuff will leak time and again. >> if ipv6 space is effectively infinite (and we once thought ipv4 >> space was), then what is the use of ula address space? why not >> just assign vanilla ipv6 space? > At this moment there is no IPv6 PI spa so we do this kinky thing to create a half-assed version of it? pfui! randy
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]